|HOME||September-October 2009 Featured Stories||Background Information||News On The Web|
According to the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, National Security Advisor General Jim Jones was quoted in a classified foreign ministry cable as having told a European foreign minister that unlike the Bush administration, Obama will be 'forceful' with Israel. Jones is quoted as saying: "The new administration will convince Israel to compromise on the Palestinian question" meaning Israel will be forced into an expedited agreement on a Palestinian state.
This was not a simple off-the-cuff remark. At the AIPAC Policy Conference in May, Vice President Joe Biden advised Israel to commit to a two-state solution in order to broker a "peace" with the Palestinians, and in Britain, Foreign Secretary David Miliband declared that "Palestinian statelessness is the biggest recruiting sergeant for Islamic extremism around the world" while Tony Blair announced that by the fall, the US, EU, UN and Russia would unveil a new framework for establishing a Palestinian state.
The problem with this insistence on a "two-state solution for two peoples" is that a Palestinian peace partner doesn't exist and has never existed and no amount of rhetoric, Israeli concessions or pandering to Arab demands can make it so. The Palestinians cannot co-exist with each other let alone with Israel and refuse to forego violence or accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state in their midst all part of the Islamic political ideology of supremacy over non-Muslims, the principles of which are embedded in Sharia law. Refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, they continue to see Jews as dhimmis, or second class religious subjects, as opposed to a national group exercising legitimate national rights. They propagate the myth that no Jewish kingdom ever existed in the land they call "Palestine", and that there was never a Jewish temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem that is the Jews are merely European invaders foreign colonialists with no historical ties whatsoever to the land. 
They have consistently used this myth as the basis for rejecting the concept of a Jewish state in the Middle East. "We do not recognize the State of Israel or its right to control any of the land of Palestine", said Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar. "Palestine is holy Islamic land. Our national problem is not related only to the West Bank, Gaza, and al-Quds (Jerusalem)...but to Palestine, all [the territory of] Palestine." By that he meant Israel proper or what he calls "the Zionist entity." So far as Hamas is concerned, the war against the Jews will continue until Israel as an independent Jewish state is vanquished. As Alan Dershowitz writes: "The people of Gaza really believe that the Holocaust never occurred. They really believe that firing rockets at school children is God's command. They really believe that Jews are a combination of the devil, monkeys, pigs and vermin. They really believe that Israel doesn't want peace and seeks to destroy the Islamic world and its holy places. It is difficult to build an enduring peace on such a structure of lies."
Nor is "moderate" Fatah any different. In March, Muhammad Dahlan, a former chief of the PA's secret police organizations defended Fatah from the charge, made by Hamas, that it had previously recognized Israel's right to exist. "For the 1,000th time", Dahlan said, "I want to reaffirm that we are not asking Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist. Rather we are asking Hamas not to do so, because Fatah never recognized Israel's right to exist." Abu Mazen himself expressed similar sentiments in 2006. In furtherance of this, as Palestinian Media Watch has documented on numerous occasions, the Palestinian Authority educational system continues to ignore American and Israeli demands that it halt anti-Israel propaganda and incitement. It continues to teach children that all of Israel belongs to Arabs. As part of that strategy, in 1964, the Arabs created a fiction they called the "Palestinians" and blanketed the world successfully with the mantra that they were the Palestinians and Palestine (read "Israel") was theirs. PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein explained the strategy to the Dutch newspaper Trouw: "The Palestinian people do not exist," he said. "The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel. In reality, there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak about the existence of a Palestinian people since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism."
Winston Churchill once wrote that regardless of how brilliant the strategy, we should occasionally look at the results. From 1948 until 1967 the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were both under the rule of Arab states (Jordan and Egypt, respectively). They could easily have set up a Palestinian homeland in those areas. They did not. It is not as if the Palestinians have never before been offered statehood. The history of the 20th century is strewn with such opportunities from the Arab rejection of the 1936-1937 Peel Commission Report on partition; to Haj Amin al-Husseini's choice of war rather than a two-state solution in 1947; to the 1967 Six-Day War when Israel offered to exchange land in return for a permanent peace with its neighbors leading to the three No's of the 1967 Khartoum Declaration – no negotiation, no recognition, no peace; to the Israeli withdrawals from southern Lebanon (2000) and Gaza (2005) that left genocidal terrorists on Israel's northern and southern borders; to former Prime Minister Ehud Barak's offer in 2000 of virtually everything the Arabs claimed they sought a sovereign state with its capital in East Jerusalem, 97% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and tens of billions of dollars in "compensation" for the plight of Palestinian refugees all of which was rejected by Arafat who then brought on the Oslo War (also known as the Second Intifada) and the murder of over a thousand Israelis; to the covenant of Hamas declaring endless war not only against "the Zionist entity" but against Jews everywhere; to polls conducted recently by a reputable Norwegian polling institute showing conclusively that a majority of Palestinians are not against a two-state solution provided both states are Muslim; to the Palestinian media and Palestinian textbooks that continue to promote a culture of martyrdom and hatred of Israel and Jews; to Palestinian "moderates" like Mahmoud Abbas who recently rejected any possibility that the Jews could or should be considered one of the "two peoples" in any proposed two-state solution and who also rejected Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert's offer in December 2008 of 97% of the West Bank for a Palestinian state, plus 'the right of return' and large-scale Palestinian immigration into Israel ... all of which leads to the question how, in the face of such hatred and rejectionism, anyone could possibly believe that peace in the Middle East can be attained through the creation of a Palestinian state that even the Palestinians don't want unless it is an Arab/Muslim state replacing Israel?
One would think after all this, that the European Union and the US would have concluded that the concept of a two-state solution for two peoples is part of a larger Arab strategy designed to destroy Israel as a Jewish state incrementally rather than the panacea for an over-all Middle East "peace". Yet, pressure for a "two-state solution" is precisely what Prime Minister Netanyahu encountered in his May 18th meeting with President Obama.
The current administration misunderstands the nature of the problem in the Middle East. It is not that the Israelis don't understand Obama. They understand him very well. Obama's problem is that they don't buy what he's selling. Palestinians define their identity in terms of the absence of Israel as a Jewish state. Palestinian nationalism seeks to replace Israel not co-exist with it. For that reason, there is no Palestinian leader with any following that accepts Israel, so it is pointless to discuss a Palestinian state unless Palestinian society itself is fundamentally changed.
Time and again, a two-state solution for two peoples has been proposed and time and again, the Arabs have rejected it. It is not simply that they have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity (which, by the way, they have) but they remain more intent on annihilating the Jewish presence in Israel than fulfilling the responsibilities of statehood in their own separate state. It is, in its very essence, a religious war wrapped in the garb of a territorial dispute. Even if Israel removed every security barrier eliminated all its West Bank checkpoints, agreed to return to the pre-1967 borders, removed every Israeli city, town and village from the West Bank (as it did in Gaza), offered a generous refugee "compensation package", and acceded to Palestinian demands that sections of Jerusalem be internationalized, does any sentient person actually believe that this would end the Arab-Israeli conflict? So why pressure Israel into what can only be described as a suicide pact with those committed to its destruction?
Joseph Puder said as much in a recent article in FrontPageMagazine: "A widening majority of Israelis have come to realize that a paper agreement with the Palestinians is worthless, and that once Israel has withdrawn from the West Bank and the attacks against Israel renew, the world including the US will find excuses for Palestinian bad behavior. The Palestinians are certain to renege on key provisions of any agreement as they did under the Oslo Accords, and the Obama administration, intent on keeping the Arab and Muslim world happy, is unlikely to give Israel a green light to reoccupy the West Bank. One has to be a fool to believe that Mahmoud Abbas or any other Palestinian-Arab chieftain would settle for a demilitarized West Bank, or would seriously consider uprooting the terrorist infrastructure."
As an aside, the European Union's 1993 Copenhagen Criteria for new members states: "Membership criteria require that the candidate country must have achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, rule of law, human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities." Clearly any Palestinian state established in the foreable future will not even remotely meet such criteria.
Furthermore, the linkage between the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza and "progress" on the Iranian nuclear threat as suggested by US foreign policy officials is preposterous. Even a tacit acceptance by America and Israel of a nuclear-armed Iran will not be enough to persuade Tehran to accept a two-state solution that would allow Israel to exist as a Jewish state. The mullahs have built their reputations as radical Islamists in part on their anti-Americanism and in part on their insistence that no Jewish state should exist in "the heart of the Muslim world", so why abandon their raison d'etre when the only nation capable of threatening their power, the U.S., continues to dither through dialogue and ineffective economic sanctions? Even the Iranians mock these efforts as symptomatic of American decline and weakness.
Does the current administration actually believe that after years of deception, billions spent on developing a covert nuclear weapons program and threats to "wipe Israel off the map", the Iranian mullahs are suddenly going to evolve into rational actors, accept American-led global liberalization, become less apocalyptic and less messianic by ending their efforts to bring on the hidden imam, Shi'ite Islam's "end of times" figure of retribution, less inclined to establish their caliphate throughout the Middle East, and more prepared to turn their swords into plowshares once a Palestinian state has been established?
Does the current administration not see that if the Iranian regime continues to advance its nuclear program, it risks Iranian domination of the oil-rich Persian Gulf, threats to U.S.-allied Arab regimes, the emboldening of Muslim jihadists in the region, the creation of an existential threat to Israel, the destabilization of Iraq, the shutdown of the Israel-Palestinian peace process, and a regional nuclear-arms race? The Arabs know it and the Israelis know it, but the Obama administration continues to plough ahead with its failed policies, oblivious to the facts on the ground.
Does the current administration actually believe that the moment a Palestinian state is created in Gaza and the West Bank, Syria will cease transferring terrorists to Iraq, cease its concealed chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, reduce its ties with Iran and Korea, or cease meddling in Lebanese affairs? As Barry Rubin writes in the Jerusalem Post: "There are huge benefits Syria derives from its alliance with Iran including Islamist legitimacy, protection against being attacked or pressured, money, weapons, cooperation in anti-Israel terrorism and spreading both countries' influence among the Palestinians, Lebanese and Iraqis. Once Iran gets nuclear weapons, which is on the horizon, the alliance's value for Syria will rise dramatically."
Does the current administration actually believe that stopping an Israeli family from building an addition to their home to accommodate their children in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, Ma'aleh Adumim, Efrat or Ariel is more important than stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or demanding that the Arabs stop inciting hatred of Jews and Israel in their schools, marketplaces, mosques and media, start dismantling their terrorist infrastructures, and recognize Irael's right to exist as a Jewish state in the Middle East?
Does the current administration not recognize that the settlement and natural growth issues are peripheral matters with little relevance either to the Palestinians' quality of life or to the ultimate disposition of territory in the West Bank? The fracas over this issue is not only undermining U.S.-Israeli relations, but the credibility of the Obama administration which is now seen by the vast majority of Israelis and a growing number of Americans as forcing Israel into making dangerous security and land concessions while pandering to Israel's (and America's) enemies. If Obama wants to retain the Jewish support he received in the last election, and restore a sense of trust among the Israeli people, then he had best understand the reasons why the Israelis have shifted away from the "land for peace" concept. By forcing Israel to accept another terrorist state on its borders, he will not only fail to build his Arab coalition against Iran, but he will be fulfilling Iran's mission in the Middle East.
History tells us that making nice with genocidal fanatics will not convert them into apostles of peace, but that does not seem to phase this administration whose Middle East foreign policy appears to be ideologically inflexible and based more on wishful thinking than reality the myth that all terrorists want is to be appeased, accepted and respected. Consequently, it is immune to rational argument and appears unmoved by objective facts that prove otherwise (such as the recent Fatah conference in Bethlehem that categorically rejected any accommodation with Israel), and expose as folly its single-minded devotion to the idea that Israel is responsible for the absence of peace in the Middle East.
The reality Obama refuses to accept is that peace has never been up to the Israelis. It has always been up to Israel's enemies. John Podhoretz notes in Commentary: "The goal of American foreign policy in the Middle East is now the creation of a Palestinian state. Very little will be expected of the Palestinians in the creation of that state; Hamas should renounce terror and recognize Israel, but a failure to do so will not kill the deal. Violence should be foresworn, but even that is of secondary importance to the state itself ... .A great deal, however, is expected of Israel." Obama's insistence that the U.S. has the only solution to the conflict will never reassure the Israeli people on the right or the left that his policies are intended to benefit them.
The 2007 Pew Global Attitudes Project found that 77% of Palestinians do not believe they can live side-by-side with Israel as a Jewish state. That being the case, so long as fewer than two in ten Palestinians believe in Israel's right to exist as a nation with a Jewish majority, there can be no successful peace based on a two-state solution. Israel cannot afford to take existential risks posed by a terror-based Palestinian state, all of whose leaders refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist. Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland, former head of Israel's National Security Council, made much the same point recently when he declared "…the maximum that any government of Israel will be ready to offer the Palestinians and still survive politically is much less than the minimum that any Palestinian leader can accept."
President Obama told Jewish leaders in a July meeting that Israel needs to "engage in serious self-reflection." His idea that Israelis need to reconsider their policies and change their attitude is more than arrogance. It is incredibly naive, historically wrong and inherently dangerous.
The truth is that President Obama's whole Middle East strategy is in the process of imploding. He had best re-evaluate his policies rather than advise the Israelis to re-evaluate theirs.
[1.] Steven Plaut, "The 14 Lies Blocking Peace in the Middle
East," FrontPageMagazine.com, August 14, 2009
If a Martian were suddenly to land on earth and start listening to and reading the mainstream media, he would form the impression that the entire Middle East conflict were due to Israel building some settlements in land that much of the world thinks should become a Palestinian state. A near-consensus exists among the governments of the world and among media writers that peace has yet to break out in the Middle East because of three principle reasons. The first is that the Jews and the Arabs have been unable to agree about whether there should be a Palestinian state. The second is because Israel has obstinately refused to withdraw its troops from (so-called) "occupied Arab" lands. The third is because Israel behaves cruelly towards the Palestinians.
The Martian could easily carry these beliefs back to its home planet, as long as it did not bother to learn the background and the history of the Middle East conflict. Those three reasons cannot survive an antibiotic of familiarity with Middle East history.
President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seem to think the idea of Palestinian statehood is the most wonderful idea to come along since the Thirteenth Amendment. And almost all world politicians, along with the Israeli Left, insist that all Israeli settlements must be removed from the West Bank because they serve as the main obstacle to peace. The reality is that the Middle East conflict has very little to do with debate over Palestinian statehood and even less to do with Israeli "settlements." In fact Israel has agreed in principle, somewhat foolishly, to the erection of such a Palestinian state, at least subject to some security conditions and other concessions from the Palestinians -- like recognizing Israel's right to exist. As it turns out, even so-called "moderate" Palestinians reject any such idea.
Meanwhile debate about the Middle East conflict is based on an incredible absence of historic information and on a series of stylish misconceptions about Middle East history. The anti-Israel Lobby, which grows by the day in its maliciousness and anti-Semitism, counts on the ignorance of much of the public concerning how the Middle East got to where it is.
Here are just a handful of popular misconceptions and their antidotes:
1. Falsehood: Israel was erected on land that belonged to Palestinian Arabs.
Truth: Before Israel was created its territory never belonged to Palestinian Arabs and had not been ruled by any Arabs at all since the Middle Ages. It had been a Turkish province for centuries until it was captured by Britain during World War I. The League of Nations awarded governance of "Palestine" to Britain at the end of the war in exchange for its commitment to turn the area into a Jewish homeland. The lands on which Jewish immigrants settled before Israel was created were purchased by Jews at above-market prices and in most cases had no Arabs living on them. Virtually no Arabs were evicted.
2. Falsehood: The Jews came to Palestine as foreigners and aliens whereas the Palestinians were the indigenous people of the territory. Truth: Jews lived in "Palestine," which is the Land of Israel or "Eretz Yisroel," continuously from the time of the Bible. Most families of "Palestinians" migrated into "Palestine," during the same period as the Zionist waves of immigration, starting in the second half of the 19th century. The largest ethnic group in the country at the time was the Turks. The "Palestinian Arabs" in 1948 were primarily families of migrants from Lebanon and Syria. Ironically, they were motivated to become "Palestinians" in the first place thanks to the Zionist movement, which brought capital and labor into "Palestine" and improved living conditions there. Huge numbers of the names of "Palestinian" Arab villages and towns are slightly-modified Hebrew names. It is difficult to dig in the ground of "Palestine" without uncovering Jewish artifacts, some thousands of years old. Meanwhile, two-thirds of Mandatory Palestine's territory had been sliced off in the 1920s and used to set up Jordan, an Arab Palestinian state much larger than Israel. The remaining territory, Western Palestine, was to become the Jewish homeland. That was the original "two-state solution," the same "innovation" now being promoted for the Western third of the remaining part of Palestine.
3. Falsehood: There is no Palestinian state today because of Israeli aggression and obstinacy.
Truth: There is no Palestinian state today because of Arab aggression and obstinacy. In late 1947, the United Nations approved by a two thirds majority a proposal to create in to create in Western "Palestine" two states to replace the British Mandatory regime there. One would be Jewish and the other a Palestinian Arab state. The Jews agreed. The Arabs rejected the idea. The Arab states launched an attack of genocidal aggression against the Jews, invaded "Palestine" and gobbled up the lands earmarked for the Arab Palestinian state. Most of those lands were then held illegally by Jordan and semi-legally by Egypt until 1967 when they were liberated by Israel in the Six Day War. The Arab world has maintained a state of war with Israel since 1948, refusing to recognize its legitimacy, and attacking Israel over and over in a series of wars and terrorism campaigns. The Arab states attacked Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, 2006, and sponsored terrorist atrocities against Jews in Israel since it was created. The reason for the attack which produced the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948 is exactly the same thing that stands in the way of any real peace settlement today.
4. Falsehood: Israel conducted "ethnic cleansing" of the Palestinian Arabs in 1948-49.
Truth: The Arab states conducted ethnic cleansing of Jews after 1948. About a million Jews were expelled by Arab states, their property stolen, and most then became citizens of Israel. Palestinian Arabs became refugees in 1948-49 as a direct result of the Arab war of aggression against Israel, in which the Palestinians participated. The estimated number of such Arab refugees varies between 400,000 and 750,000, with the former the more likely correct estimate. Afterwards, many were quietly allowed to return to Israel. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs from other Arab countries then declared themselves "Palestinian refugees" in order to get handouts from the UN and other international relief organizations. The actual Palestinian Arabs became refugees for the same reason that ethnic Germans living in Eastern Europe became refugees after World War II: because they were on the losing side of the war of aggression launched by their own political leaders.
5. Falsehood: Israel is an apartheid regime and mistreats Arabs.
Truth: Israel is the only Middle East country that is NOT an apartheid regime. Arabs living under Israeli rule are the only Arabs in the Middle East who enjoy freedom of speech and of the press, free access to courts operating with due process, legal protection for property rights and the right to vote. Israeli Arabs have higher standards of education and health than any other group of Arabs in the Middle East. Israeli Arabs are quite simply the best-treated political minority in the Middle East and are in some ways better treated than are minority groups in many European countries. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that does NOT deal with Islamist terror through wholesale massacres of the people in whose midst the terrorists operate
6. Falsehood: Arabs engage in aggression and terrorism because Israel occupies territories.
Truth: Israel occupies territories (that had been controlled by Jordan and Egypt before 1967) because of Arab aggression and terrorism. Had the Arabs made peace with Israel after 1949, the West Bank and Gaza would have remained under the hegemony of Arabs and they could easily have erected a Palestinian Arab state there any time they wished. Instead, they attacked Israel in an attempt at genocidal extermination in 1967 and they lost.
7. Falsehood: The Middle East conflict is and has always been based on Israeli opposition to Palestinian self-determination.
Truth: The Middle East conflict is and has always been based on Arab opposition to Israeli-Jewish self-determination. There is one and only one cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict, even if that single cause is buried beneath an avalanche of media mud designed to obfuscate and confuse. That single cause is the refusal of the Arab world to come to terms with Israel's existence within any set of borders whatsoever. The cause of the war is Arab refusal to come to terms with Jewish self-determination in any form whatsoever. The Middle East conflict is not about the right of self-determination of "Palestinian Arabs," but rather it is about the Arab rejection of self-determination for Israeli Jews. For a century, the Arabs have attempted to block Jewish self-determination, using violence.
No Palestinians before 1967 demanded any "homeland," although they did demand that the Jews be stripped of theirs. That is because Palestinians are not a "people" at all and do not consider themselves such, any more than do the Arabs of Paris or of Detroit. Palestinians never had any real interest in their own state, and in fact rioted violently in 1920 when "Palestine" was detached from Syria by the European powers. Indeed the original term "Nakba" ("catastrophe" in Arabic and in leftist NewSpeak) was coined to refer to the outrage of Palestinians separated from their Syrian homeland. Immediately after the Six Day War a sudden need for a Palestinian state was fabricated by the Arab world, as a gimmick to force Israel back to its pre-1967 borders. Israel would then again be ten-miles wide at its narrowest, and so prepped for the new Arab assault of annihilation and genocide.
The Arab world invented the "Palestinian people" so that it would serve the same role as the Sudeten Germans did in the late 1930s. That role was to provide a pretense of legitimacy for the war aims and aggression of a large fascist power. The term "self-determination" has been repeated as a rhetorical "inalienable right" for so long that few people recall that pursuing "self-determination" can also serve as a tool of aggression by barbarous aggressors and totalitarian powers. When Hitler decided to go on a war of conquest in the late 1930s, he dressed up his intentions in the cloak of legitimacy, merely "helping disenfranchised and oppressed people attain self-determination." He distorted the plight of ethnic Germans living in the Czech Sudetenland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe, inventing tales of mistreatment. In reality of course these ethnic Germans already had the option of "self-determination" within the neighboring, sovereign German nation-states, and in fact enjoyed far more freedom and rights than did Germans inside Germany. Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia was prepared through postured indignity over the mistreatment of Germans by Germany's neighbors. Hitler insisted he was simply seeking to relieve the "misery of mistreated ethnic Germans," supposedly suffering inside democratic Czechoslovakia. "Self-determination" was also the pretense when Germany attacked Poland and other countries.
The Arab world decided that the "Palestinians" must play the role of Sudetens, serving as the political and moral pretense for Arab aggression and Islamofascist imperialism. The Arab fascists then misrepresent themselves as pursuing noble efforts at protecting a mistreated oppressed minority group of Arabs in need of "self-determination."
8. Falsehood: Palestinian terrorism has been a response to Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and as a response to Israeli settlements there.
Truth: Palestinian terrorism against Jews began in the 1920s, escalated in the 1930s, continued non-stop in the 1940s even in the midst of World War II, and reached heights of barbarism in the 1950s. All this was long before Israel "occupied" anything. The PLO was set up long before the Six Day War, meaning before Israel "occupied" the West Bank and Gaza, and before those areas held a single Israeli settlement.
9. Falsehood: Israel has no right to build settlements in the West Bank.
Truth: Israel has as much right to build settlements in the West Bank as France has to build towns in Alsace and Lorraine, or as Poland has to build in areas that once held ethnic Germans. The Arabs launched a series of wars of aggression against Israel and lost. Aggressors who lose a war also lose territory. The bulk of Jewish "settlers" are actually Israelis living in the suburbs of Jerusalem that were constructed after 1967. A handful of small rural "settlements" have been constructed in empty West Bank lands from which no Arab civilians were evicted. In any real peace settlement, Jews would have as much right to live in the West Bank as Arabs have to live inside Israel. A peace accord that rules out such an arrangement would be no peace accord at all.
10. Falsehood: The Middle East conflict continues because Israel refuses to share its land and resources with Palestinians.
Truth: The Middle East conflict continues because the Arab world refuses to share its land and resources with Jews. It is about the absolute refusal of the Arab world to acquiesce in the existence of any Jewish-majority political entity within any set of borders in the Middle East. The Arabs today control 22 countries and territory nearly twice the size of the United States (including Alaska), whereas Israel cannot be seen on most globes or maps. Arabs as an ethnic group control more territory than any other ethnic group on earth. They refuse to share even a fraction of one percent of the Middle East with the Jews, even in a territory smaller than New Jersey. Without the West Bank, Israel at its narrowest point is less than 10 miles wide, about the length of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. The main reason the Arab world demands that Israel relinquish the West Bank to Palestinian terrorism is so that it can be used to attack Israel again and so that Israel can at last be militarily annihilated. The Arab world controls such vast amounts of territory and such vast amounts of wealth (thanks to petroleum) that it could have created a "homeland" for Palestinian Arabs anywhere within its territories at any time.
11. Falsehood: Israel deals with Palestinian violence and terrorism using excessive disproportionate force.
Truth: The number of innocent Palestinian civilians intentionally killed by Israel is exactly zero. The number of civilians injured in Israeli anti-terror operations is tiny when compared with NATO and Allied military operations in Serbia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, or Iraq. Given the near universal support among Palestinians for terrorist atrocities against Jews, the self-restraint and moderation used by Israel in dealing with the threat has no precedent in the world. Israel's own Arabs make little attempt to hide their open identification with the genocidal enemies of their own country and they by and large support the annihilation of the state in which they hold citizenship. No other democratic country facing such open sedition and identification with the enemy in time of war ever responded with anywhere near the same restraint as shown by Israel. In World War II, when faced with a far less-dangerous problem, the United States locked up its ethnic-Japanese domestic population in internment camps. Democratic Spain set up teams of death squads to deal with its separatist terrorists. Democracies in war have junked habeas corpus and treated their internal Fifth Columns as the enemy, with no hesitation or squeamishness.
Democratic Czechoslovakia and India (as well as non-democratic countries throughout Eastern Europe) undertook wholesale expulsions of millions of members of their internal ethnic minorities who had sided with the enemy. Greece and Turkey and the two sections of Cyprus simply expelled altogether their minority populations. Israel, in contrast, operates affirmative action programs that benefit Arabs, finances Arabic-language schools in which Israeli Arabs preserve and develop their culture, overfunds Arab municipalities, and turns a blind eye to massive Arab sedition and lawbreaking, including with regard to illegal mass squatting on publicly-owned lands. Israel is a Western democracy with a Scandinavian style social welfare system, the only democracy in the Middle East. It is hard to come up with words to mock satisfactorily the ludicrous nature of the complaints about Israeli "mistreatment" of Arabs. These complaints come from the very same people who are apologists for genocidal Islamofascist terrorist movements and for the Arab fascist states, regimes that are among the most barbarous and openly war-seeking on earth. The endless complaints about "human rights violations" of the "Palestinians" by Israel are a rhetorical part of the broader campaign of aggression against Israeli survival. Arabs living under Israeli rule are the world's foremost illustration of "Moynihan's Law," which holds: "The amount of violations of human rights in a country is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints about human rights violations heard from there. The greater the number of complaints being aired, the better protected are human rights in that country."
12. Falsehood: Israel can achieve peace by trading "Land for Peace" and by relinquishing territories that it "occupies."
Truth: Every time Israel relinquishes territory it "occupies" it triggers an escalation of terror and violence by Arabs against Jews. The main cause of anti-Israel terrorism today is the removal of Israeli occupation from Arabs. This is so obvious that it is a major intellectual challenge to explain why so few people understand it. Israel ended its occupation of the Gaza Strip in its entirety in 2004 and evicted all Jews who had been living there. The complete Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip produced a barrage of thousands of rockets aimed at Israeli civilians inside Israel (NOT in the "occupied territories"), a barrage that eventually forced Israel's reluctant leaders to carry out the "Cast Lead" operation against Gaza terrorism. The Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon was unilaterally ended in the year 2000 by then-Israeli socialist Prime Minister Ehud Barak. The direct result of that fiasco was the launching of 4,000 Katyusha rockets from Lebanon against northern Israel in the summer of 2006, and several times that number now poised to strike Israel. The worst waves of Palestinian suicide attacks were directly triggered by the early Oslo withdrawals before which there had been no suicide bombings. There can be no doubt that a complete Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and a return to pre-1967 borders would trigger a massive rocket and terror assault against the remaining areas of Israel, launched from the "liberated" lands in the West Bank. The same thing would result from Israel relinquishing the Golan Heights to Syria.
13. Falsehood: The Zionist Lobby exercises excessive influence and dictates policies to the United States, protecting Israel from just criticism.
Falsehood: The anti-Zionist Lobby exercises excessive influence and dictates policies to the United States, protecting Palestinians, Arab fascist regimes, and Islamofascism from just criticism. While the media overflow with nonsensical talk about a "Zionist/Israel Lobby," it would only be a small exaggeration to claim that there is no such thing at all. The anti-Zionist lobby binds together anti-Semites and fanatics, ranging from Islamists, to the radical Left to the Neo-Nazi Right. There is little today that separates anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism and I have never met an anti-Zionist who was not also an anti-Semite. (Jewish leftist anti-Zionists are the self-hating moral equivalents of Taliban John and Tokyo Rose).
14. Falsehood: The Middle East conflict can be resolved through "Two States for Two Peoples."
Truth: The "Two States for Two Peoples" idea is not a solution at all but simply a strategy for weakening Israel and forcing it behind indefensible borders. Right after "Two States for Two Peoples" would be implemented, the new "Palestinian state" would invite the rest of the Arab world to finish off what remains of Israel. Even the "moderates" within the PLO insist that any "Israel" left standing within "Two States for Two Peoples" must be flooded by Arab migrants and stripped of its Jewish majority, in effect converted to yet another Arab Palestinian state. The Arabs still condition any "two-state solution" on Israel agreeing to being flooded with Arab immigrants purporting to be Palestinians, so that it will morph demographically into the 24th Arab state. Israel obviously cannot agree. Israel would be blanketed in rocket and mortar fire from "Palestine" and waves of Arab terrorist infiltrators into Israel would raise the carnage to unprecedented levels.
That such a "two-state solution" will not end the conflict, but only signal the commencement of its next stage, has long been the quasi-official position of virtually all Palestinian groups. These have long insisted that any two-state solution is but a stage in a "plan of stages," after which will come additional steps ultimately ending Israel's existence as a Jewish state. The "two-state solution" is no more realistic an option today than it was in 1948, when it was militarily squashed by the Arab states, terrorists, and armies. It is ultimately as much of an existential threat to Jewish survival in the Middle East today as the so-called "one-state solution," favored by the anti-Semitic Left, in which Israel is replaced by a Rwanda-like bi-national entity controlled by Arabs, in which the Jewish problem will be resolved in a Rwanda-style manner.
Creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel would be a major step in the escalation of the Arab war against Israel's existence, even if that war is delayed for a brief time while the world celebrates the outbreak of a Potemkin "peace" in the Middle East produced by the end of Israeli "occupation" of "Palestinians."
Since the Oslo "peace process" began in the early 1990s, the working hypothesis endorsed by nearly everyone on the planet (including large numbers of IQ-challenged Israeli politicians) has been that the most urgent task at hand is to end the Israeli "occupation" of Palestinian Arabs. The problem is that ANY Palestinian state, regardless of who rules it, will produce nothing but escalated violence, terror and warfare in the Middle East, certainly not stability or peaceful relations. It will seek war with the rump Israel, and will seek to draw the entire Moslem world into that war. It will be indifferent to the economic and social problems of its own citizens.
Humans seem to have a basic impatience with hearing the truth repeated over long periods of time. In an era in which technology, politics, and science change so rapidly, many consider it to be implausible that a statement that had been true 60 years ago could still be true today. Surely, they insist, explanations from the past, such as those of the Middle East conflict, must be obsolete by now, replaced with new updated "theories" and more-modern perceptions of reality.
The result of all this is pseudo-history, where people invent new "theories" about some of the most widely-accepted truths of history. No subject has been subject to quite so much pseudo-historic revisionism and denial of "out-of date" truths as the Middle East. George Orwell once said that the first duty of intelligent men is to restate the obvious. Obvious truths need to be restated because they are under assault by so many dishonest men.
The Palestinians have no legitimate claim to a right to set up their own state, and creation of such a state would result in escalated warfare and bloodshed, not peace. There was never in history an Arab Palestinian state. Even if such a right ever existed, the Palestinians like the Sudeten Germans - would have forfeited it thanks to decades of terrorism, savagery, mass murders and barbarism. Their pacification today requires reimposing of martial rule by Israel and a thorough program of De-nazification.
The promotion of a "Two States for Two Peoples" solution has radicalized and Nazified most Israeli Arabs, who now identify with and openly support Arab parties and politicians openly calling for violence against Jews and for the destruction of Israel. The "solution" is a recipe for more bloodshed and strife.
Mark Silverberg is a foreign policy analyst for the Ariel Center for Policy Research (Israel), a Contributing Editor for Family Security Matters, Arutz Sheva (Israel National News) and the New Media Journal and is a member of Hadassah's National Academic Advisory Board. His book "The Quartermasters of Terror: Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Jihad" and his articles have been archived under www.marksilverberg.com and www.analyst-network.com
|HOME||September-October 2009 Featured Stories||Background Information||News On The Web|