The Arab-Israeli conflict

[Invictus]

The following is a compilation of posts that I made during a debate on a leftist forum about the Arab-Israeli conflict.

--------------------------------------------------------

The severity of the current crises in the Middle East is entirely the fault of the Arabs refusal to recognise the state of Israel’s right to exist and their unrelenting attempts to destroy it. Indeed, it is Israel’s destruction, rather than Palestine’s establishment, that has long been the priority of Arab governments and even the Palestinians themselves.

On many occasions the Palestinian people have been offered a state, and on each of them they have responded by murdering Jews.

When the Peel Commission of 1937 proposed dividing Palestine between the two sides, with Jerusalem and the majority of land going to the Arabs, the Palestinians, without offering so much as a counter proposal, engaged in arbitrary massacres of Jewish civilians. The most horrific of these took place in Hebron, where the entire Jewish population was either killed or expelled. The greatest tragedy of the Palestinians rejection of the Peel Commission was that it prevented up to a million European Jews from immigrating to what would have been a Jewish state, instead these Jews ended up in Nazi killing fields and gas chambers. Rather than show remorse over this, the Palestinians sided with Nazi Germany and did everything possible to ensure that the Jews of the Middle East shared the fate of their European cousins. The grand mufti of Jerusalem and leader of the Palestinian people, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was involved in the spreading of Nazi propaganda and the organising of Arab-German commandos who attempted to poison Tel Aviv’s water supplies. Here is a little of what he had to say: “Rise o sons of Arabia. Fight for your sacred rights. Slaughter Jews wherever you find them. Their spoiled blood pleases Allah and our religion. That will save us.” Husseini, who spend most of the war years in Berlin advising Hitler on the “Jewish question”, was declared a war criminal at the Nuremberg trials. Regardless of this he was granted Asylum in Egypt and continued to lead the Palestinians. He is now considered by Arafat and many other Arabs to be a hero of their cause. In contrast to the actions of the Arabs, the Jews of Palestine formed armed legions and fought valiantly against the Nazi menace.

The second opportunity for Palestinian statehood came with the U.N. partition plan of 1947 that would have divided Palestine on similar lines as the Peel Commission. As you’d expect, the Arabs responded to this generous offer with a war that had but a single purpose: to destroy the Jews of Israel. Immediately after the Israeli declaration of Independence, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon bombed civilian targets within Israel. Despite their backward air force and comparatively tiny army, Israel defeated the Arab aggressors. They were spurred on by the knowledge that a defeat would mean a repeat of the Holocaust, just as the Arab battle cry suggested, “Murder the Jews, drive them into the sea”. As a result of the war Jordan and Egypt found themselves occupying the West bank and Gaza strip respectively. Rather than give this land to the Palestinians they chose to keep it for themselves. The reason no outcry resulted from these occupations is simple: Israel’s defeat, not Palestine’s creation, remains the top priority among Palestinians, the rest of the Arab world, and armchair activists up to this day.

Yet another opening for a Palestinian state arose at the 2000 Camp David peace negotiations. When Arafat turned down the offer of the Israeli Prime Minister Ahud Barak that would have given the Palestinians 95% of the West Bank, the entire Gaza strip, Jerusalem, the Temple mount and US$30 billion dollars in compensation, he made it all to clear that his desired path was one of bloodshed and that his goal was the destruction of Israel.

Prince Bandor of Saudi Arabia predicted the consequences of Arafat’s actions when he plead with him at Camp David, “You have only two choices. Either you take this deal or we go to war”. Bandor has since labelled Arafat’s decision as a “crime against the Palestinians- in fact, against the entire region”. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

To make it so blindingly clear that even a bunch of stoners like you should understand, Arafat’s communications minister stated, “The Palestinian Authority began to organize for the outbreak of the intifada since its return from the Camp David negotiations, by request of Yasser Arafat”.

It is for the abovementioned reasons that simply giving the Palestinians a state will not solve the conflict. The Arabs will continue to pursue its much-desired goal of destroying Israel. Any Palestinian state will simply be used by Libya, Syria and Iran as a launching pad for further attacks against Israel. Regardless of this, it is my opinion that Israel should take unilateral steps to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Although they will not receive a guarantee of peace they would lift from their shoulders the heavy burden of occupation. What will best deter the Arabs from engaging in another all out attack on the Third Temple is Israel’s nuclear arsenal, that they, more than any nation on earth, have a right to posses.

Jews lived in Palestine long before the U.N. partition of 1947. A small number remained in Judea when the Romans emptied it in 70 C.E. But it was with the First Aliyah in 1880 that the Jews arrived en masse and legally purchased land from Arab landlords and the Ottoman government. At this time the already extremely low number of Arabs living in Palestine (most of whom were Bedouin and Egyptian rather than Palestinian) was dwindling significantly. However, with the arrival of these Jewish refugees fleeing persecution in Europe (encouraged by Arab leaders who accurately predicted their arrival would better the situation) Arab numbers flourished. This fact can be attributed to the improved healthcare, water supply and sanitation that the Jews brought with them, cutting infant mortality rates, increasing life expectancy and all but eliminating malaria. Additionally, the newly cultivated land provided the Arabs with many lucrative employment opportunities.

The Jewish immigrants turned a desolate and near uninhabited expanse of land into a prosperous and modernised series of towns and communities.

[AisA]

An excellent post. What sort of response did it get?

[y_feldblum]

I'm guessing all the wrong ones.

[Skywalker]

Very well-written post. I think in 1937, Hitler's stranglehold on Germany was already so great that the Jews may not have been allowed to emigrate - the "final solution" was already brewing. It doesn't seem likely that Hitler would have taken kindly to contributing to the Jewish state's population. This doesn't exonerate the people who rejected the deal and caused today's bloodshed, but I'm wondering if it might be a small inaccuracy in your post?

Also, where did you get all of this information from? I'm particularly curious about the origins of the ending section section on Jews who transformed the land.

I also can't wait to see what kind of responses you got.

[y_feldblum]

The origins of the ending section (as well as all) of the message is - astonishingly - the facts of reality.

For a contentious source, try this Capitalism Magazine article about Joan Peters' From Time Immemorial, or this Capitalism Magazine partner site, Israel Is Moral.

[Invictus]

I think in 1937, Hitler's stranglehold on Germany was already so great that the Jews may not have been allowed to emigrate - the "final solution" was already brewing.

The Nazi's had not decided on extermination until they lost the battle of Britain and came to the realisation that the war would last longer than expected. Until that time the solution to the "Jewish question" was the removal of all European Jews to Madagascar.

Also, where did you get all of this information from? I'm particularly curious about the origins of the ending section section on Jews who transformed the land.

My knowledge of Israel has come primarily from Benny Morris but also from Alan Dershowitz and Donna Rosenthal.

I'm guessing all the wrong ones.

You nailed it. Links to anti-Israel articles and pictures of dead Palestinians a plenty.

[y_feldblum]

... dead Palestinians, especially victims of their own government, aplenty.

Most of the PA propoganda (or any media that makes it through PA cencorship) is photo-op.

[AutoJC]

Yet there are people who would disagree with you on your support of Israel.

They'd cast the terrorists and the Israelis as "moral equivalents."

They call Ariel Sharon, the one Israeli who, in my opinion, has the fortitude to deal with the Palestinian terrorists for the criminals they are, a murderer.

They claim that Israel is an illegitimate state whose establisment was "illegal."

You can find such horrific drivel here.

Israel should beat up the Palestinians until they unconditionally surrender. Then they can talk peace.

[y_feldblum]

There are people who say "things are whatever I wish them to be".

You've just got to reduce the former (your people) to the latter (my people).

My idea of peace is: capture and exile a randomly selected city today. Demand some set time of total peace, and if it is not achieved, capture and exile the rest of the territories.

Right now, the Israelis' idea of peace is, "Hey (ow), stop (ow) hitting me!" And the world's idea of peace is, "Israel, shut up." America's response is, "I'll chide the bullies for you."

It's revolting. Israel carries a bick stick for precisely this reason. And now they're using it merely as a crutch.

[gadfly]

They claim that Israel is an illegitimate state whose establisment was "illegal."

You can find such horrific drivel here.

Your disapproval at this point is a mere assertion, unless you back it up. What is your argument against the specifics presented by the poster?

[gadfly]

Folks, there is more than one issue at stake here. There is the issue of how to respond to the urgent, immediate problem of Palestinian terrorism (which is largely the subject of the posts here), and there is the question of a Palestinian state for non-terrorists.

Israel is getting fairly good at dealing with the former (especially courtesy of Apache helicopters), but is lagging on the latter.

No moral person can expect Israel not to defend itself. I take issue with certain things they are doing towards this end, however.

The security barrier is a good idea from a safety standpoint, but it takes a questionable path into the West Bank around some Israeli settlements. I'm sorry, but the West Bank settlements are not Israeli land, period. I would think that advocates of property rights would see this as wrong, not because they should not be defended, but because they should not be there at all. The government should pay the settlers to vacate (like I understand they paid them to settle in the first place). Without them leaving, there will always be a pretext for invading that land to help them out, even if they become absorbed by a Palestinian state.

And what role do the remaining settlements play in "self defense"? They don't. They are not military installations, they are suburban neighborhoods in the middle of nowhere. They simply make a future Palestine less likely, and need to go away.

Palestine is not for the bomb-wielding martyrs (who will never accept Israel or anything less than all the land in the region), it's for the legitimate Palestinian citizens of that land, and for Palestinians who were pushed out in the mid-20th centry, or who have fled this dangerous region to lead safe lives elsewhere.

Despite the fact that some in the world see the creation of Israel as a mistake and an injustice, the thoughtful among them must realize that the plight of the Jews at that time was certainly more serious than that of any other group. In any case, the whole issue is water under the bridge, since nothing is going to change Israel now. Israel now needs to step up to the historical plate in turn and do the right thing, get the heck out of the West Bank, and get Palestine formed already! If they wait for the terrorists to go away, hell will freeze over before this conflict is done wreaking havoc on that region and the rest of the world.

[AisA]

The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration and accepting the concept of the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine it violated the sovereignty of the people of Palestine and their natural rights of independence and self-determination.

Gadfly, this statement from the post in question exposes the central fallacy of the claim that "Palestinians have a right to a state."

There is only one kind of "self-determination" that is proper, there is only one kind of state that anyone has a right to create, -- and that is a free state, i.e. one in which the purpose of the government is to protect the individual rights of the state's citizens.

Creating such a state in a given geographic area violates no one's rights, including people that have lived there for decades without creating a state. They may continue to live there just as they have always done, or leave if they so chose. If they object to any of the many optional features of a state, such as its name, its legislative process, etc,. they are free to participate in the political process to influence those decisions.

What they may not do, however, is claim the right to create a different kind of state, that is, they cannot claim the right to create a state in which individual rights are not protected. There is no such thing as the right to create a state that violates rights. There is no such thing as the right to “self-determine” one’s way to a dictatorship or a theocracy or any form of totalitarianism.

Thus, the Zionists had every right to create a free state. They had every right to “impose freedom”. It matters not a whit how many "Palestinians" were in that area or how long they had been there. Their rights were not harmed or infringed in any way. They could continue to live there just as they had always done, or leave if they wish.

The Palestinian claim amounts to saying, "We demand the right to create a state that excludes Jews and imposes the laws of Islam.” There is no such right.

The Palestinians have the right to create a free state – and nothing else.

I'm sorry, but the West Bank settlements are not Israeli land, period. I would think that advocates of property rights would see this as wrong, not because they should not be defended, but because they should not be there at all.

Yes, they should. A free nation has the right to keep land seized in the process of defending itself against an attack launched by a dictatorship. Those settlements are entirely proper.

[gadfly]

Creating such a state in a given geographic area violates no one's rights, including people that have lived there for decades without creating a state.

I would agree provided they are afforded some sort of freedom or property rights commensurate to what they had before, within reason (even though they may not have explicity subscribed to the idea of property rights). For example, I don't think it would be right to build up a city around a goatherd's stomping grounds and then give them a one-room apartment when they used to live on 10 square miles, just because they didn't have a state.

The Palestinian claim amounts to saying, "We demand the right to create a state that excludes Jews and imposes the laws of Islam.”  There is no such right.

That a Palestine would be an Islamic state is not a foregone conclusion. No doubt many would like that, but many would not, especially those living abroad. Israel's populace is delineated by religion, yet the state is not a theocracy.

Yes, they should. A free nation has the right to keep land seized in the process of defending itself against an attack launched by a dictatorship. Those settlements are entirely proper.

You have a point; I agree that by such agression the agressor loses rights, and therefore Israel is effectively filling a vacum by taking this land. However, it should be obvious to all the players at this point that this is also the land that would become Palestine if that ever happens. And I think that the settlements are either 1) a de facto annexation which the settlers hope is permanent and will prevent a Palestine or 2) Isreal's way of ensuring that they always have an excuse to roll back into this territory, to defend the settlers against the occasional yet inevitable attacks that would come from Islamic wackos in the new (democratic) Palestine. Either way, it's not very forward-looking.

Basically my concern is that the rest of the world is sitting on their hands while this aging conflict between flea-sized neighbors drags the rest of the West down with it.

[Yes]

Your disapproval at this point is a mere assertion, unless you back it up. What is your argument against the specifics presented by the poster?

It doesn't appear that JC had meant to present an argument against Invictus. It seems that he merely wanted to mention the type of opposition that Invictus might face against his arguments.

For the most part Invictus keenly understands the situation in Israel, and what led up to the current and previous conflicts.

An excellent resource for information might be Israel's official site.