Israelophilia

Well, that is something that I would never say– but then, despite my surname, I’m not Jewish, so raising questions about patriotism about something like this just… makes me feel icky.
-
Instead, I’d just note that the policy of maximal insult to Palestinians isn’t in Israel’s interests, either, just as occupying Iraq for the next 60 years isn’t in the US’s interest. Only a million times worse than that.

Joe Klein:

…Hikind is flaunting a warped form of Israelophilia, putting Israel first, that is not in the best interests of the United States, the country where he continues to live and prosper.

That great American patriot and father of our country agrees with you (the counsel of US President George Washington):

…nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated.
.
The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests.
.
The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.
.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.
.
It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government.

When did this somehow become a debatable proposition within our government, Joe Klein?

It’s ben suggested that this subject would benefit from a period of American detachment. I’d be happy if JK would give it a rest, whether the government does or not.

OK, OK – “been” suggested, not “son of” suggested. It’s still a.m. around here, so gimme a break.

Here are some questions:

1) Does international law require that people cannot build on land to which they hold title?

2) Were there Jews in E. Jerusalem prior to 1948?

3) Did Jews have the legal right to build anywhere in Jerusalem prior to 1948?

4) Is all emigration to “occupied territory” barred by international law?

Rather than challenging the “patriotism” of Americans, which makes some “feel icky”, it should be expressly illegal.

My suggestion would be to amend the Helms-Burton Act, which prohibits transactions in expropriated property in Cuba, to also prohibit purchasing property in the occupied territories.

As a matter of pure political theater, such a bill would be tough to top. The most hardened defenders of the Cuban embargo would likely oppose the bill. Many of the liberal opponents of the Cuban embargo would support it. As would many European countries who similarly oppose the U.S.’s embargo of Cuba.

The persons most likely to be consistent between the proposed Cuban and Israeli embargoes would be arch-international free-traders, who oppose all barriers to international commerce.

Which is why we will have to settle for sniffing in the general direction of Dov Hikind.

I think it’s healthy to encourage Americans to buy property in all areas of Israel and Palestine. If and when a Palestinian state is established, or one big (binational?) state is set up, there should be no restrictions on religion or nationality of property owners. So the fact that Americans might buy property right now, doesn’t prejudge in any way the outcome; it just helps to insure that the resulting administration will be more free and less able to impose unreasonable restrictions. One of the main things which seems to be missing is a good property registration system so that “who owns what” is perfectly transparent and clear. This again would be helped by having more Americans enter the market.

So, now a citizen can only buy land on his/her PRIVATE time if it is in support of American interests and policies? As long as it is legal, the government has no business telling a citizen where and when he/she can buy private property.

Is that legal? Just barely, I’d guess (quoted from article above)

Really, you aren’t even going to bother to do a little research to find out, merely make a guess?? Very responsible journalism there.

Deleterious traitor!

1. Of course if you hold a legitimate title, you may build on the land, in the most general sense. However, if you acquired said title by way of contravening the actual land owner, or by any other pernicious means, then naturally to build on the land is as illegitimate as the act of acquiring the title. Case in point, the Israeli government often revokes the legal deeds held by Arabs in East Jerusalem and subsequently offers titles and building permits to Israeli Jews. Valid? No. When the Israeli government, which has no legal authority over Jerusalem as per the 1947 Partition Plan, revokes permits/titles and builds its own Jewish only apartment complexes and condominiums, any subsequent transaction associated with these properties is null and void.
~
2. Yes, there were Jews in E. Jerusalem, albeit an overwhelming minority in comparison to the local Arab populace.
~
3. Yes, they were allowed to build. However, when Israel violated the partition plan by annexing Jerusalem it lost any legitimacy in its Jerusalem endeavors. It’s continued harassment of Arabs in East Jerusalem and downright oppression of Arabs in West Jerusalem warrants a reciprocal refusal of rights for Jews in East Jerusalem, were it to be rightly ceded to a new Palestinian state.
~
4. No, immigration is not banned. What is banned by the 4th Geneva Convention is the transfer of an occupying power’s civilian populace to occupied territories. Transfer refers to government provided relocation, such as the case with the 30,000 illegal settlements paid fully by the Israeli government (with US taxpayers’ dollars). Obviously, this would not apply to Dov Hikind, as he is not a citizen of Israel (or he may be, American Jews many hold dual citizenship). However, when he openly advocates not simply for his right to buy land somewhere in the world, but for Jews across the world to move to East Jerusalem (which is mostly Arab and the intended locale for a future Palestinian capital) he is intentionally seeking to change the demographics to make a Palestinian state less foreseeable. It’s an agenda, and a noxious one at that. His entire purpose is to subvert a Palestinian state. His motives are selfish, ethnocentric, and volatile. His chief concern is the power of Israel, not the interests of the US. He is a traitor. Not merely due to this one instance, but because of his continued provocations and his hawkish and racist support of Israel to the detriment of the US.

Joe Klein, you are the reason I canceled my printed subscription. I never seen so much ‘stupid’ writing by a single person.

You’re missing the point here. Maybe it’s not illegal for Hikind to purchase a legitimate deed somewhere in the occupied territories. However, Israel has no permissibility to oversee anything in the occupied territories, or in any portion of Jerusalem, which was to be an international zone as per the 1947 Partition Plan. Therefore, any illegally occupied property that Israel offers up for sale is an inadmissible transaction. Furthermore, Hikind is not merely proclaiming his right to purchase property, he is calling for Jews specifically to purchase land in East Jerusalem to alter the demographics and subvert Palestinian sovereignty. With an influx of Jewish land-owners in East Jerusalem, Israel will be emboldened to remove East Jerusalem from the negotiating table. Israel is already occupying the city illegally, do we really need more Jewish instigators moving in and jeopardizing peace? It’s intentionally provocative on the part of Hikind to advocate such activity.

Thx yr reply exiled. So it is possible that the Gilo building is not in contravention of international law?

Also, I don’t see how so-called Israeli violations of international law extinguish Jewish rights when flagrant violations of law in E. Jerusalem pre-1967 doesn’t extinguish Arab rights . . . .

You may want to rephrase your last sentence in accordance with proper linguistic norms prior to calling JK’s writing ‘stupid.’

exiled, Jordan attacked israel in 1967–it was the occupier of Jerusalem then–it lost. Israel certainly has the right to administer E. Jerusalem until final status is negotiated. It’s not illegal for Jews to move into E. Jerusalem, and by your rationale, the desecration of Jewish holy sites during Jordanian suzerainty removes Arab rights to E. Jerusalem.

And Exiled, what about Israeli efforts in the West bank to undo pogroms? E.g., Hebron? Does international law require Israel to accept hebron 1929 as a fait accompli?

Yes, I would say that JK is inaccurate in his claim that this is tantamount to illegality. It’s wrong, provocative, immoral, and counterproductive, but not necessarily illegal.
~
The pre-1967 activities against Jews in Jerusalem were direct responses to ethnic cleansing of Arab villages by Jewish militias and terrorist groups pre-partition. These atrocities incited Arab reciprocation in Jerusalem. When Israel conquered and illegally annexed Jerusalem it subsequently began to systematically infringe upon the basic rights of Arabs. No side has the moral high ground in these to and fro retaliations, however, Israel is the instigator. My point was simply that I would be unsurprised if Jews were treated hostilely in East Jerusalem (were it to come under Palestinian authority) after four decades of subjugation of Arabs in Jerusalem. It’s a vicious cycle, perpetuated by both sides. It’s certainly not black and white, spob. Yet, I firmly believe that Israel is the more complicit aggressor in this conflict.

Thank you Mr Klein for having the guts to speak up about our “pro Israel at any cost” bias. I’m sure all the trolls and Palinites will now come and call you an anti semite for supporting terrorism now.

The problem, then exiled, is that you don’t get to pick and choose. International law either has exceptions or it does not. Excusing anti-Jewish activity pre-1967 on West Bank because of provocations pretty much excuses annexation by Israel.
.
By the way, I’d be willing to bet that most Arab residents of E. Jerusalem would choose to remain Israeli vice live under the PA.

Yet, still not illegal Exiled. Maybe not smart. Maybe inflammatory. If those were the benchmarks we use, practically every freaking politician currently in office would be in violation on one issue or another.

It’s been up for over 4 hours now and nobody has lept to that conclusion. The only one leaping to conclusions is you regarding how opponents to his views will react. Who is the intolerant one, then?

By the way, didn’t Obama say that Jerusalem was the undivided capital of Israel?

goingroguex~
Dov Hikind is a Democratic Congressman. Much like most Democratic politicians, he is insanely pro-Israel. This is not a partisan issue. It won’t just be Palinites who oppose reasonable views on Palestine. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the single most bipartisan issue in this contrary, ideologues from all over the spectrum egregiously support Israeli expansion.

Joe Klein calling himself a lifelong supporter of Israel is like Barack Obama calling himself a lifelong supporter of Israel. Saying it over and over won’t ever make it so.

Leave Israeli policy to the Israelis, Mr. Klein. They’ve made it this far without you.

Spob,
Past violations are never legal justification for current violations. I never argued as much. I suggested that Jews in East Jerusalem will pay for the actions of their government. The Arabs (Palestinians) in Jerusalem today are not responsible for the actions of a foreign government prior to 1967, i.e. Jordan. All Arabs are not one and the same. Israeli Jews, however, are bound by nationality and complicit in their givernment’s acts.
~
Xxception,
Legally, Hikind is free to purchase land. However, is he legally able to purchase land that has been illegally occupied? Can you steal something and legally sell it? Or, is that transaction void?

Israeli policy directly involves the United States. Putting aside the financial complicity we have in their policies and the cover we provide at the UN for their human rights violations, the Israelis have injected their policies into domestic American affairs through AIPAC. We’ll stop opining in the illegal conduct of Israel when our money ceases to pay for it, when our politicians cease to be blackmailed by foreign agents, and when Israel ceases to involve us in their quest against Islam.

You’d be willing to bet? Clearly, you have never been to the region, nor talked with local Palestinians.

Israeli policy directly involves Israel. The USA has no say in Isreali policy.

If Obama has the balls to cut off funding to Israel let him do so and pay the political price. The man is crippled by the simpliest of decisions. Netanyahu has boxed his ears in politically and will continue to do so.

Joe does think he’s slick in declaring himself a supporter of Israel. Joe is irrelevent and he knows it. It kills him what’s happened since GWB took office. Joe is humiliated at the fact the left in Israel gets less than 5% of the vote and the left in the USA is useless.

Joe doesn’t say if and why this is illegal. I don’t know why it would be. I can’t imagine there is a law that says I cannot buy property overseas.

I think Joe is starting to realize there is a very significant threat in the middle east regarding American jews. Because the primary support for Israel comes from Christians and other conservatives many jewish groups are lookling at how to better invest their dollars and buying real estate in Jerusalem is a great advantage. To the extent they can make very attractive offers to Palestrinian owners and transfer ownership to jews that obviously lowers the resistance to Israel using Jerusalem as their capital.

The fact is rich Americans have been investing in Israel for decades. Virtually all of the settlements are on property owned by jews sold to them legally by Palestinians. Think about it from the Palestinian perspective. They’ll never be able to live there and the Jews will pay a premium. The clear incentive is to sell. Moreover, over time this is going to expand as the Israeli’s become far more prosperous than the Palestinians.

rdw~
Why are you responding to my comment with commentary on the American/Israeli left and Joe Klein?
~
The only rhetoric you espoused that was relevant to my comment was your naive (disingenuous?) comment that America has no say in Israeli policy. Theoretically, this is true, what with the whole sovereignty thing. However, in reality, the policies of the US and Israel are inseparably entwined.

The USA has no say in Israeli policy any more than Egyptian policy. if we are giving aid to them in exchange for a say in policy then it’s not aid is it?

Look, the fact is Obama has been pitiful. Even he admits his no stelttlement policy has been a disaster. Israel is a soveirgn democracy. I think we all agree they will and should set their own policy based on what THEY see as their vested interests.

To the extent we support then and give them aid we are within acceptable limits entitled to persuade them in a direction we feel is better for all parties. We are not entitled to dictate policy. We are entitled to pul our aid.

But all comes down to what is politically possible and smart. Netanyahu has so dominated Obama he can ignore him. But Netanyahu is too savvy for that. He will continue his BiBi-as-Gandhi act and play to the cameras. He will also support Mr Hikind in buying as much Palestinian land as possible.

Yo have to admit that’s a great solution. They have been buying out Palestinians for many years usually through 3rd parties. Palestinians prefer to other Palestinians. So they think they are.

“His chief concern is the power of Israel, not the interests of the US. He is a traitor. Not merely due to this one instance, but because of his continued p rovocations and his hawkish and racist support of Israel to the detriment of the US.”

His is not a traitor. He’s acting in a way he thinks benefits the USA and it’s legal. He’s not violated any laws. The fact you disapprove doesn’t make it illegal or not in the best interests of the USA.

As an earlier, more powerful and more widely respected Jew once said “when there is blood on the streets, that is the time to buy.”

Maybe Dov is more optimistic about a “final solution” to the Arab – Israeli problem than the media would represent.

Dov is remembering well the lessons he learnt prior to his barmitzvah – wealth and prosperity you can pass on. Ideological positions are for the schmucks.

RDW~
Legality is irrelevant. He has treasonous loyalties, plain and simple. Along with the overwhelming majority of his congressional colleagues, he has the interests of Israel as his priority, not the United States. When American politicians unabashedly vote in favor of resolutions that condone or encourage the violation of human rights and international law that is detrimental to the interest of the United States. When he and his colleagues issue condemnations of Presidents who dare challenge Israel on the legal admissibility of settlements, they subvert the interest of the United States. When Congress passes resolutions declaring America’s unbreakable support of Israel in all its endeavors, a declaration tantamount to an oath of loyalty, deleterious intent is clear. Congress is beholden not to the United States, hell Congressmen frequently challenge US policies. But when challenging the policies of Israel is considered political suicide, it is clear that Israel’s perverse infringement of American politics is ubiquitous. Our Congress has declared its intentions to strengthen Israel at all costs, while they continue to subvert the strength and influence of America. To whom do they owe loyalty? America or Israel?

Obama is irrelevant to this discussion. I do not support his policies. I did not vote for him. You don’t win the discussion on the probity, or lack thereof, of Israel by clamoring on about how weak Obama is and how Netanyahu is manipulating him. That may be true. It matters not in regard to my views. And it certainly does not nullify the illegitimacy of Israel. Israel has secured its own demise through decades of arrogant insolence and schizophrenic notions of self-righteous entitlement. Her disregard for the rest of the world makes her a target of international scorn. Israel’s days are numbered. Who leads the US has no bearing on Israel’s ultimate and forthcoming downfall.

The law on the rights of an occupier are clear and well understood everywhere except in America and Israel: the occupier is not the sovereign and may not, among many other things, [1] build a wall on land illegally seized in occupied territory or [2] build settlements on land illegally seized in occupied territory or [3] settle members its own population within occupied territory. This law has been set forth in the 9 July 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice which ruled on the legal consequences of Israel’s building its wall in the occupied territories (West Bank). READ IT. IT’S FASCINATING. Especially read paragraphs 100 and 120.

OK, so Dov Hikind may not settle on land he does not own and may not legally acquire land from someone (else) who does not own it. Can he legally buy land from a Palestinian? Perhaps, but good luck.

The USA, for its part, has behaved despicably. As long as peace was (even arguably) in prospect it made a sort of sense (not much, but maybe some) to allow Israel to violate the law of occupation.

Now that Israel has spat in the USA’s face by refusing even to stop building new settlements and additions to old settlements, it is clear that Israel prefers to occupation to any peace the Palestinians would accept.

That is OK. No law says Israel must accept what the Palestinians want. Or vice versa.

But since peace is no longer in prospect (realistically, it has not been in prospect for 20 years and the so-called “peace process” has been nothing but a charade), the USA should demand (and in fact should require) that Israel conduct its occupation legally.

This means, minimally, that it must remove the wall, remove the settlers (all 500,000 of them), and either remove (i.e., destroy) the settlements (buildings) and Israelis-only highways which connect the settlements to pre-1967 Israeli territory or else give them to the Palestinians for their unrestricted use.

Will such legality bring peace? Who can say. But the law is the law and should be respected, because it is intended to limit the power of occupiers in the interest of protecting the human rights of the people living under occupation — in this case Palestinians.

If Israel feels above the law, no power but the USA can correct its lawlessness. If the USA will not do so (and so far it has shown no tendency to do so, backing down regularly to Israeli “tough talk”) then we may kiss human rights goodbye and look forward to the next Middle East war.

What is not widely known is that Dov Hykind was one of the early members of the Jewish Defense League, initiated by the late, unlamented racist Rabbi Meir Kahane which was listed by the FBI as a terrorist organization. That this fact has been ignored by the NY Times is evidence of his political clout.

Although Hykind left the JDL when he decided to go into politics, he has never renounced either Kahane or his own virulently anti-Arab racism.

Clearly, Hykind’s demonstration of Jewish supremacist and Israeli-first positions sit well with his largely orthodox Jewish constituency although the vast majority of Jews would quite likely find them and Hykind abhorrent.

Succinctly perfect! If you are the J Blankfort that I have often read, then allow me to extend my fond admiration for your work, especially your take on Chomsky.

[...] the increasingly deranged Joe Klein, over at Time Magazine’s appropriately named Swampland blogs, used the occasion for blatant [...]

Guys, with all the due respect, you are out of focus as the basic terms are concerned.
1. The Oslo Peace process was not a “charade” as someone called it but a true attempt on the part of Israel to maneuver the so called Palestinians into a statehood, to which USA and other Western countries were contributors. It turned to be a debacle, obviously, due to the fact that the so called Palestinians are not a nation in pursuit of their statehood, but a conglomeration of tribes or clans (“hamullahs”) in general pursuit of wiping Israel from the map. Why? Because the free and open society residing in front of their eyes undermines their Arab Islamic ideal. They parasitize on the Western concepts like self-determination etc., but they behave so that, if they gain any territory, nothing other than Islamic fundamentalist society will be established there. Any doubts? Well, see the example of Gaza strip after Israel’s withdrawal, or the avoiding elections by Abu Mazen – he knows the results.
2. American interest. Is the establishing of another Islamic republic, that will necessarily be hostile to the US and the West in general, in the interests of the US?
Moreover, that Islamic republic will be a target to regional predators like Syria and Egypt (like it was from time immemorial – consult history), and hence even more instability will ensue (Egypt and Algeria almost reached a brink of war over a football game). Is that in the interest of US? To remind you, Israel stopped the Syrian tanks columns moving into Jordan in 1970 – following the US request. Isn’t that worth a couple of years of military aid? Whom would you ask – the Egyptians? The Turks? (The latter wouldn’t let the US units pass through on their way to Iraq).
By the way, contrary to what one of the guys claimed as if Israel refused to freeze construction in the settlements in Judea and Samaria, the opposite is true: Israel conceded to a temporary freeze, but the Arabs didn’t come along rejecting Obama’s request even for very modest diplomatic gestures.
3. Concerning American military aid. The aid is given to Israel to buy military equipment in the US, so that the US government promotes the American industry. During the years Israel served as a testing ground of the American weapon systems versus the Soviets, and again you don’t obtain this kind of invaluable information and feedback from the battle field for nothing. (Of course, you can always try your luck with the French).
4. You are clinging too much to the legalistic and formalistic side of the matter without giving necessary weight to the real culture groups and what future forms of existence they are driving at. Even so, you are applying to Israel rules that are unapplicable elsewhere: no one would seriously consider, say, a German claim to the territories of Prussia which they controlled prior to the WWII that they unleashed, but you do consider Arab claims to the territories they lost in 1967 and even in 1947-8 as a result of the wars they unleashed. You take for granted the Arab right to the Judea and Samaria territories (dubbed as the West Bank), while these were occupied till 1967 by Jordan. Until that year and even later no one talked about the so called Palestinian people and their rights. It’s a 1.25 million Arabs in Judea and Samaria and approximately 1.0 million in the Gaza strip (not much common between these two groups). Reasonably they are entitled to some kind of autonomous self-rule. What about some 15-20 million Kurds who constitute a well defined nation centuries in existence? Let’s see you, legalistic guys, extricate yourselves from this issue (possible clues: not to divide Iraq, not to aggravate the Turks – very serious legalistic claims. But to risk driving Israel into the sea by promoting Iranian proxy 8 miles from the shore is OK. Someone got insane? Or just too eager to push the Jews? Check your motives versus logic).
5. As to the one guy who claimed that Israel’s days are numbered, we’ve heard it somewhere: Nebuchadnezzar claimed it, the emperor Adrian claimed it (not to mention Hitler). I don’t advise you to join those venerable gentlemen’s company. Anyway, you won’t see it (and I don’t mean to wish you a short life), neither your grandchildren, nor theirs.
6. As to JK, I won’t bother more than to repeat a comment I’ve already placed in his regard after reading his other intellectual pearl, pointing out our indebtedness to the people of his kind of mind in that we owe them Mark Twain’s aphorism: “First God created idiots”.
7. As for Barak Obama, he is a very smart guy but with extremely wrong worldview that he created to himself as a social worker. It looks like the reality is starting to dawn upon him.

Did you see the last two wars? Why on earth would Hamas even think about a war with Israel after what just happened? The next time it’s very possible a rebuilt Fatah will follow Israel into Gaza to help restore peace.

Think about that. This year Israel relied on an air attack but did use ground forces to segment Gaza into two and then cleaned out the tunnels near the Egyptian border. The next time they could have Fatah do that. I do believe the members of Hamas realize Fatah will use some methods similar to those of Hamas used on Fatah members. Like dragging fathers into the street and pumping them full of bullets in front of their kids.

Israel could segment Gaza easily into as many bite-sized pieces as necessary to ensure Fatah can do a thorough search a section at a time until all of Gazxa has been cleared. One of the problems Israel had is many hamas members hid out in Hospitals and schools and mosgues and other places Israel could not go. Fatah can go into all of these places.

It’s very easy to envision how the next war will be the end of Hamas. And if you look into Southern Lebanon there is a similar problem for Hezbollah and Syria. I can’t imagine Syria even pretending to contemplate war with Israel but to the extent Hezbollah becomes active Israel can make Syria pay a severe enough price their ruling minority is tossed out by the majority ending much of the support for Hezbollah. More critical is Israel learned so much after the last spanking. Israel would do much more from the air almost certainly starting the attack at their Northern Border to prevent their senior figures from hiding in Beruit. And then devastating Southern Lebanon from the air. This would significantly disrupt the balance of power allowing groups from Northern Lebanon to re-establish total control of Beruit and all of Nothern Lebanon, including, control of who can enter the North from the South.

What you’ve seen Israel do is to engage groups which might beneft from a weakened Hamas or Hezbollah and use the opportunity to finish them off. It’s makes perfect sense. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Israel gained a 150-1 kill ratio in Gaza thanks to a shift to precision bombing and improved intelligence. Think of the possibilities for better intelligence if Fatah is going the gathering. Israel will be able to fairly safely segment Gaza in a way that benefits Fatah in minimizing their casulaties. The win/win here for Israel and Fatah is unambigious. Fatah regains total control of Palestine and eliminates all threats from Hamas or any other terror group. A two state solution is immediately possible.

Assume that happens 1st Israel can relax it’s borders with the WB and Gaza and have only Southern Lebanon and Syria. Syria is a thug state with a withering economy and falling oil production. Israel is a flourishing technologically competent power. Syria can’t possibly attack Israel. In the next 3 years Israel will probably increase GDP by $20B and the USA alone will invest another $10B in their military. The Syrians will be lucky not to be poorer. The same for Southern Lebanon. Israel is going to be patient but ready. The next war Hamas starts will be their last.

Beng~
Actually, it is you who is overlooking the point. While legality may mean nothing to you, it is rather important for most people. As are basic human rights. All of which are violated on a daily basis by Israel, with the result being over 4 million Palestinians oppressed, humiliated, denied basic rights, arbitrarily detained, etc. That you take issue with the term “Palestinian” has no bearing on their actual existence and their treatment.
~
I find it particularly odd that while you wholeheartedly endorse Israel – formed with the intent to reclaim a Jewish homeland of 2000 years earlier – you would simultaneously deny this claim to a homeland to Palestinians because it is a 40 year old claim. So, Palestinian claims to the lands that Israel occupied illegally are void because they are four decades old, yet Israel’s 2000 year old claim to Judea and Samaria is valid? So could you clarify for me, is it that Arabs and Muslims are sub-human beings, or, that Jews are superior to mere mortal humans? I haven’t quite pegged you down, yet…
~

Hello, Exiled_At_Home
I’ll gladly clarify you my points. But with all due respect, let me only call you to shed off your predispositions taken from a different script, i.e. ” Palestinians oppressed, humiliated, denied basic rights, arbitrarily detained” and all that stuff. I don’t know where you take that kind of information, or rather disinformation. I’ll ask your permission not to repudiate your attempts to “peg me down” (if that’s the word – I had to look up in the dictionary, as English isn’t my native language) with statements like “Arabs and Muslims are sub-human beings” or ” Jews are superior to mere mortal humans”. Don’t go that low, spare me. Just try to accept the possibility that you don’t know the facts and you don’t understand the situation. That’s why you cling to a scheme that is not relevant and misses the point – the scheme of “oppressors-subdued” or “colonizers-exploited” or something like that. Now let me address some facts.
1. Before the 6-Days war in 1967 the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria had no rights under the Jordanians. I spoke with the people on the ground, not the functionaries.
If a policeman addressed a citizen it would be after punching a fist in his face first. I’ll leave to your intelligence to figure out if that citizen had a legal way to complain. This situation is absolutely impossible at the encounter of the Israeli policeman or soldier with that same citizen, or his descendant. Soldiers were put to trial for in a few cases of misbehavior towards Arabs. Can you bring an example of a policeman brought to trial in any Arab state for that same fault?
2. The Arabs that fell under Israeli control in 1967 had no running water, no electricity, life expectancy was 44 years. Their life expectancy was raised at least to mid-sixties long ago due to Israeli medicine. No need to mention electricity and water supply. We could go on on the subject human rights. I’ll make it short by challenging you to imagine that you are an Arab standing to trial for whatever crime: now choose whether you prefer to be tried in Israeli court or in a court of any of Arab countries or the PA (“Palestinian Authority”). Before you decide, I’ll inform you that even those accused of terror attacks are represented by lawyers (there were cases of acquittal), and if found guilty serve in conditions of 3 star hotel, having family visits and learning toward academic degrees in university if they so choose. Let alone the cell phones, TV sets, books etc. That is in Israel. In PA people were put to death by “pegging” them to the pole head down, torturing and leaving the corpses for another couple of days for everyone to see. Now you will indulge me to inform me of your choice.
3. You can check my the information, but you have to work harder than just reading the press. I’ll bring to your attention this particular evidence: an Arab from one of the villages under “occupation” told me personally that “they want to be inside” – which means that if there is a partition, they – i.e. his village- want to find themselves in the Israeli territory. And he added : “Nothing will come out of those Palestinians”. Don’t believe me? Check this fact: in the last decade some 70 thousand Arabs from the “occupied territories” and also from Jordan infiltrated Israel and found spouses from Israeli Arabs in a bid to get an Israeli citizenship.
According to you they really are eager to seek the status of ” sub-human beings”.
I think they vote with their feet to the contrary. Is Israel perfect? No, but it is one the most decent countries on this planet caught in a very difficult situation having to constantly fight for its very existence for 60 odd years, and now also against the army of hypocrites, anti-Semitic bigots and, excuse me, fools who find it self-indulging to pronounce cliché on things they don’t really understand but in fact undermining the best of the Western culture. Excuse my straightforwardness.
4. You persist to use the expression “the lands that Israel occupied illegally” referring to Judea and Samaria that fell to Israel’s rule as a result of the 6-Days War as a result of the Arab countries aggression. That is clear cut. You don’t take on the example that I proposed of supposed German claim to Prussia. Or the a possible Mexican claim to California (that was an aggression on the part of the US). So who is singling out Israel: I – for better, or you – for worse?
5. Legality. Believe me it means a lot to me. But the truth is no less precious. Actually you can’t base legality on a pile of distortions and outright lies.
6. Take a look from another perspective. There are no Arab states that you may call developed and prosperous, even those drowning in oil. Let alone democratic and free. These are truths you can’t deny. What is the clue to this situation? I’ll spare you a lecture but I’ll suggest a solution: the culture that places them into a kind of vicious circle which they don’t find a way to break through. (Check the notion : Nash behaviour). On a personal level they understand this, and after being under Israeli rule they view the prospect of finding themselves under an Arab rule – if their state is founded – rather reluctantly. Try to ask people in Gaza after Hamas took over. By the way, Hamas already killed many more citizens in their skirmishes and staged executions than Israel killed in military actions. I’ll be more than glad to hear from you that you are not one of those who speak ostentatiously on human rights and legality but don’t really care.
7. Have a good day.

Shalom~
It would appear that you are Israeli, Beng, which explains quite a lot. Your perspective is, shall we say, colored by your closeness to this conflict. While that does not necessarily convey an intentional bias, it does suggest that you may have an inherent disposition towards one side without the ability to understand the Palestinian perspective. As an outside observer, however, I am in the position to see reality unfold without being tainted by personal attachment to the conflict. With that said, I am also not merely a side-line commentator. I have traveled to Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza on two occasions. Prior to my visits I was actually quite the supporter of Israeli policies. My first visit was through a DC-based counter-terrorism think tank, whereby I was given access to members of the IDF, Shin Bet, Mosad, the Prime Minister’s office, and academics, as well as members of Hamas, Fatah, and Islamic Jihad in an Israeli prison. My second visit was to Gaza through a relief agency, whereby I met with human rights representatives, including B’Tselem. I have the benefit of outside impartiality coupled with direct insights by way of my extensive experiences within Israel/Palestine.
~
As for your suggestion that I not merely rely on media for my information, I would agree. I think I’ve outlined my personal exposure to the conflict which far surpasses any knowledge I could gain from media reports. And, as an American, I assure you that the majority of media is decidedly pro-Israel, propagating merely one-side of the story. Were I to rely purely on media, Beng, I would come to the conclusions that you have drawn. It is my independent research and travels to the region that have heightened my understanding of the conflict.
~
I have many thoughts regarding your post. I will respond, although it will take some time to fully vet your various points and reply in a lucid manner.

Beng~
Let me begin by reminding you that the the acquisition of land through military operations is illegal under the UN Charter and the 1949 Geneva Convention. The two examples you cited – Mexico’s claim to California and Germany’s claim to Prussia – both precede these passages of international law. It is only incidents after the ratification of the UN Charter and the Geneva Convention that are subject to these international standards. Israel’s annexation of land during the 1967 war is clearly illegitimate under these tenets.
~
Let me further remind you that whatever may have transpired in the West Bank under the Jordanian occupation does not nullify Israel’s subsequent policies. You cannot argue that Israel is no worse than Jordan and therefore whatever she may do is acceptable. Israel is still bound by international humanitarian law and the natural law of morality in its conduct affecting the Palestinian people.
~
Given that I have established that occupation is illegal, I think it logically follows that Israel’s activities in the West Bank are illegitimate. Does it matter that Israel annexed these territories during a war that was initiated by the Arabs? No it does not. Who started the war is irrelevant to the prohibition on occupying lands. Israel occupied territories that were outside of the 1947 UN mandated borders. Israel occupied Jerusalem, which was a designated international zone. These actions are unacceptable.
~
With regard to Gaza, Israel only abandoned the territory after 40 years of occupation. Gaza was utterly dysfunctional when Israel pulled out and the people were radicalized from years of oppressive Israeli occupation. Is it any wonder that these people turned toward Hamas for leadership? Hamas, by the way, was originally funded by the Israeli government. When Israel’s main counterpart was the secular PLO, the Israeli government believed that the emergence of another group, a religiously fundamental group, would divide the Palestinian people and hinder their efforts at unity. Israel therefore backed the emergence of Hamas in Gaza, and since that time the Palestinian people have been divided. This was an intentional strategy by the Israeli government, a strategy that has led to more chaos, less Palestinian cohesion, and less opportunity for peace. Furthermore, having backed Hamas initially, Israel now continues to strangle the Gaza Strip with its blockade. Are you aware that a blockade is an act of war? Hamas has every right to violently resist this encroachment on its territory. However, Hamas, too, has violated international law through its specific tactics, i.e. suicide bombs and rocket attacks on civilian areas. But, that does not negate Israel’s illegality.
~
In the West Bank, the Israeli settlements contravene international law. The Israeli government cannot build Jewish only settlements outside of its internationally acknowledged borders. The 30,000 settlements and 500,000 Israeli settlers are all an obstacle to peace. How can Palestinians in the West Bank accept this illegal presence? How can Palestinians in the West Bank accept the hundreds of Israeli checkpoints within their own territory? Why should a Palestinian traveling from point A to point B within their own territory be forced to pass through Israeli military check-points? The billions of dollars that Israel has poured into Jewish only infrastructure, such as settlements, highways, etc, suggests that your government, Beng, has no intentional of relinquishing its illegitimate authority over the West Bank. When will you leave?
~
Now, let’s discuss proportionality, shall we. I understand that both side have violated law, both have initiated violence, both have antagonized the other. However, you made an extremely bold and disingenuous statement that Hamas has killed more than Israel. That is a lie. Hamas fights with AK-47s and Katyusha rockets. Israel fights with M-16s, tanks, F-16 fighter jets, and phosphorous bombs. How many Palestinians did your government kill in Operation Cast Lead? The answer is 1400, and another 5000 wounded. How many Israelis did Hamas kill during that operation? 13. How many Lebanese did your government kill in July 2006? 1000. You can justify these hugely disproportionate causalities, Beng? If you do, than it is you, and not I, who has no care for human rights.
~
You can continue to compare Israel to Islamic states and proudly declare your social superiority to their social systems. However, that is simply a diversion from Israel’s continued mistreatment of the Palestinians. The only reason some Palestinians choose to immigrate to Israel is because your government has made it so unbearable to live in Gaza and the West Bank that Palestinians see only two options: fight to the death against the occupiers, or, move to Israel to make a better life for them and their families. Any way you represent the situation, Beng, no matter how much you attempt to paint the Palestinians as the aggressors or incapable of governing, the simple fact remains that your government has no authority beyond your borders. So long as you continue to blockade Gaza and occupy West Bank you will be resisted, violently.

Beng,
You should read this. It is written by an Israeli who served in the IDF and is now a professor at Oxford University. It is an account that I wholeheartedly endorse and believe to be true, and yet it is written by an Israeli. He disputes nearly all of your claims and all of your attempt to apportion blame anywhere but on Israel. It would do you some good to understand this perspective.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine

Hello again, Exiled_At_Home
Not a bad guess that I’m an Israeli. Let me guess: aren’t you an American Arab? First, your alias is Exiled… , and second, you visited Israel and the Gaza. What tourist will voluntarily include Gaza in his itinerary? But you don’t have to answer. Anyway, the greatest difference between us is 6 to 10 or even 11 hours, depending on where you live. And you are still enjoying the weekend while I’m after a work day. There’s a lot of stuff to write. Even if I don’t refer to each and every one of your points that’s not because I don’t have anything to say but due to my trying not to slide into the night hours.
1. Let’s start with the article. I’ve read it. It is biased to the left and doesn’t present the exact situation. Calling Israeli attack brutal is literature. The war is brutal. The fact is that Arabs bombarded Israel with those rockets during seven years. Now the author is citing the English in 1948. Well, sure they were mad – they lost the empire in those years. We could go on and on and turn things over and over infinitely, and that’s what is going on in talkbacks. I don’t take part in it as a rule. One should take the so called intellectuals with an utter caution. For example, some year ago in the Jewish University in Jerusalem a research was submitted for either master’s or doctor’s title in sociology, the thesis being – now be sure you are seated because it can knock down a reasonable person – the racist attitude of the Israeli soldiers to the Palestinians due to the fact that they don’t rape the Arab women, the presumption being that the occupation army is usually going into such activity. These leftist academics are more of ideologues.They also used to be fond of Stalin Che Gevara and other scoundrels of the 20th century. There is hardly anywhere one-for-one shooting – check the American or the British casualties in the WWII versus the Germans. You mention aircraft and helicopters: check the bombing of Munich – 42 thousand killed in one night. Israel is using helicopters with high precision bombs to target vehicles transporting those Kassam rockets. What are you talking about?
2. Still again, on occupation. Before 1967 war Egypt ruled over Gaza (no need to remind you no one spoke about independence for the Gaza citizens). Israel obtained it from Egypt together with the whole of the Sinai peninsular. When the peace with Egypt was negotiated Israel’s then prime-minister Begin proposed that the Egyptians take the Gaza strip. They could be an authority that maintains order and is not belligerent to Israel (supposedly). They refused categorically. They knew they were leaving Israel a time bomb. As for Judea and Samaria, Israel took it from Jordan (in the course of a just war to which I think you agree). Now, Jordan rescinded its claim to those territories in favour of Arab residents of those territories. That’s a new game, legalistically. Again Israel after all went with it and proposed them a statehood with Oslo accords and the ensuing process. Don’t underplay this. But Arafat started terror acts almost as soon as he arrived: there was a bus explosion in Tel Aviv in the spring of 1995 and Israel didn’t react at all, then a series of bus explosions in the winter of 1996, and again no retaliation from Israel. When finally the prime-minister Barak proposed him to finalize the agreement (and Barak meant total withdrawal) Arafat evaded and opened a spree of explosions: buses, cafes etc. I think you didn’t miss it.
Arafat didn’t want any state, he wanted this indeterminate situation when he could claim that Israel doesn’t give him a state while he continues his terrorist war undermining Israel’s existences (you know, shooting here, exploding there) – the best he knew. To get a state he would have to sign on the end of conflict and to address issues like education, roads etc. – not his fields of interest. He was after all a professional terrorist. And then – what you sow, that’s what you reap.
In the following three to four years more than 14 hundred Israelis were killed ( and ten thousand wounded). Now multiply by 50 to match American proportions and you reach 70 thousand – 25% more than the American casualties in some 15 year of Vietnam war which no one had a perverted mind to call a low intensity conflict.
So Israel erected a wall and added some barriers. Now good souls demand us to do without these minimal means of defense.
3. So we are basically stuck with the following basic facts. In 1947 the Arabs rejected a partition. They took their chance, and they lost. That is history. Now, in the period between 1993 and 2000 they had a fair chance to obtain a state. Under the “leadership” of Arafat they blew it. History drives forward. The Oslo is becoming history too. It is absolutely non-productive to count who did what to whom. In war people do nasty things. If you insist to make a balance you will probably loose, I’m sure. But Israel tried unilateral disengagement many times just not retaliating at all. The Arabs don’t stop fighting, and then blame us for retaliating. That a vicious circle. Again, the Arabs don’t have and can’t produce adequate leadership. Our meddling in their affairs doesn’t excuse them: everyone meddles in everyone else’s affairs. Americans in ours, Europeans also paying our leftists and maintaining institutes for Peace (it’s like Soviet sponsored Peace movements in the West). Even Arafat meddled in our politics. You can’t infinitely blame all the world and Israel in particular. The so called Palestinians lost the chance once more. And the history is moving forward relentlessly.
4. To your direct question: when you leave? I’ll answer by a question: when you stop fighting. Israel obviously will not leave Judea and Samaria before it is sure there will not be Hamas-Iranian or whatever base to attack it. It may be never, realistically speaking. By the way, since when Jews are such an anathema in any state? Suppose, some agreement is reached and an international boarder is agreed upon. Then why should Jews necessarily leave. Just a theoretical legalistic question. Why shouldn’t Arabs leave Israel? It looks like people forget some basics.
5. A few remarks concerning your visits to Gaza. I take it you were not just a regular tourist. On these occasions you are given presentations by people who are specially prepared and instructed. But even after filtering that out, you witnessed a genuine misery (by the way, much less than the misery of certain populations in Africa about whom no one gives a damn, but still a misery). Now, imagine yourself in Berlin in 1945. There was terrible misery on much greater scale – of Germans. Were they responsible? Yes, they were. Suppose you found there a ten year old boy – dirty, underfed and scared to death. Was he responsible? No, but his parents were. The same holds for Gaza. It is tragic. Even more so that actually that responsibility is rather unreal because the individual has very little influence on the society when it “decides” to take a certain turn in history. And the history moves forward.
6. I owe you still another remark, actually two. (Now I’ll “peg you down”).
First, you blame all on Israel and expect Israel to behave like at least half angels. And then you tease me if I hold Jews as a chosen people. I don’t, but you do. We are entitled to our measure of mistakes (like sponsoring Hamas, for example), we can also react and sometimes over-react and so on.
Second, you teased me if I hold Arabs second rate or something like that. I don’t but you do. Since they choose to fight I hold them as enemies (at least part of them). But I also hold them responsible for what they do. For example, not only massacring Jews when they succeed, but praising those who did those acts. And don’t tell me these are act of war: lynching of prisoners in front of the square full of cheering mob, penetrating a house and killing a woman and her two toddlers, stopping a car and massacring a mother and her five children and so on. It goes also for the Loccarby plane terrorist who on his release was received as a hero in Libya, and others. I’d say it is you rather who holds them disrespectfully as some retarded idiots who just got angry, which is understandable because they thought they were treated badly. With this approach the Jews should go around the world and blow everyone. There is hardly any European country from which they were not expelled, of course not before they were robbed, that is. How about taking responsibility instead of whining? Now, again the explanation lies in minute social dynamics underpinning each culture. Probably, in the subdued status of women. While males are fighting for their inflated honor, the women are in no position to demand from their husbands to calm down and to take care of the kids and the home. As in that ancient Greek comedy.
7. Slipped into night. Let me wish you a good day at this stage. A reminder: Look up for Nash strategy/ behavior.
P.S. Clarification: I didn’t mean that Hamas killed more Israelis, I meant that it killed more Arabs in Gaza since it seized power in skirmishes with Fatah and executions than the Israelis in their military actions.

FlownOver says:

“It’s b[e]en suggested that this subject would benefit from a period of American detachment. I’d be happy if JK would give it a rest, whether the government does or not.”

People who take that view should consider the way the situation is deteriorating even while the USA merely talks about I/P.

An editorial in Le Monde neatly summarizes my view, although not elaborating the human-rights violations or the idea of enforcing international law:

http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2009/11/12/un-fiasco_1266192_3232.html

(translated)

‘It’s time to stop the verbal pretense. In the Near
East, there is no negotiation “process” underway.
Furthermore, there is also no prospect for peace. The situation is nonetheless not in a state of status quo: it is regressing. Dangerously. The United States bears the primary responsibility.

Several months ago, Barack Obama had placed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the top of his priorities. He demanded that Israel stop the expansion of settlements within Palestinian territory on the West Bank. It was, if not a prerequisite, at least a condition to allow the reopening of negotiations with the Palestinians.

‘The Israelis said no: settlements will continue to
expand, but at a somewhat slower rate, replied Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The United States just took it: speaking through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it flatly endorsed Mr. Netanyahu’s, position…. Within a few weeks, Mr. Obama lost the credit in the Arab world that his remarkable speech in Cairo in June had gained him. Even in diplomatic language, that’s called a monumental fiasco.’

Editorial
Le Monde (France)
November 12, 2009

I want the Palestinians to have their own state, and am offended when I hear about Israelis building illegal settlements in other parts of the West Bank. However, for some reason, I feel differently about Jerusalem. As a Jew, I really wish Jerusalem could just go to Israel and the Palestinians could choose another capital. Jerusalem may be a holy city to the Palestinians’, but it is just their third holiest city — whereas as far as I know, Jerusalem is the Jews’ holiest, if not only holy, city. Dividing it would be like dividing Mecca or Vatican City.

Jerusalem is the origin of Christianity. The city’s immense importance to the three Abrahamic religions suggests that it should be an international zone, as per the 1947 Partition Plan.

It was the holiest city of the Jews long before Christianity came into being. Your justification could be extended to all of Israel, yet no one would suggest turning Israel into an “international zone.” There used to be Jewish tribes in Medina (Islam’s second-holiest city), but where is the talk of splitting that into an “international zone”?

Beng~
I am Italian-American, to be accurate. Although, I do have Lebanese and Egyptian relatives. Not that any of this matters.
~
Now, while I often hear these claims that Israel receives imbalanced attention when far more serious conflicts are occurring in the world, notably Africa, there are important distinctions. You can claim what you want about me not caring about Africa but focusing only on Israel. You do not know me or what my views are on any other conflicts. I am a journalist and I have covered African horror stories, such as the ongoing conflict in DR Congo. This particular forum, however, is on a post relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so it is merely a ploy on your part to suggest that discussions on the policies of Israel are failing to recognize other conflicts. Now, on to the distinctions that separate the Israeli conflict from situations in Africa. First, the Israeli-Palestinian war has endured for six decades. The sheer length of this ongoing struggle warrants constant international attention. Then there is the small matter of Israel’s claim to be a so-called “freedom-loving” democracy. With claims such as that, shouldn’t Israel at least attempt to adhere to international law and tenets of human rights? I think the standards which apply to the Israeli government are different than those of African states who must deal with cultural obstacles to inclusion, equality, and peace.
~
In regard to your fourth point, again, you miss an important distinction. You invoke legality, so I will base my answer on legal frameworks. The Arabs who live in Israel do so on an individual basis. They choose to live within the borders of Israel and they are free to immigrate, as all people are free to immigrate as per the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Jews residing in the West Bank, however, are funded by the Israeli government. The settlements in which they live and resources and infrastructure which they use are subsidized by the Israeli government. The Israeli government is occupying Palestinian lands, and therefore, as per the 4th Geneva Convention is prohibited from transferring segments of its own civilian populace to the occupied territories. If Jordan, for example, were building entire settlements within Israel and transferring Jordanian citizens to these settlements that would be in violation of international law. If Jordanian citizens, however, individually chose to purchase a home in Israel and emigrate through legal channels, that would be acceptable. Do you understand the difference between immigration to a another country and government funded relocation to occupied territory? The former being legal, the latter being illegal.
~
In regard to your fifth point, you are probably correct that my visit to Gaza on a humanitarian mission gave me a prepared perspective, purposefully crafted to induce a particular reaction. However, in my first trip to the region, through a counter-terrorism foundation, do you not think that the IDF, Mosad, Shin’Bet, Knesset, and Prime Minister’s presentations were prepared as well? I was given nothing more than Israeli propaganda on than trip, I assure you.
~
As for your sixth point, I unequivocally reject your characterization. At no point have I suggested that Israel is only at fault. Hamas’ past use of suicide bombing is deplorable and its continued targeting of civilian areas with rudimentary rockets is a violation of international law. Hamas has employed a strategy that continues to be detrimental to the Palestinian people. I do not condone or support any of these abhorrent tactics. With that said, though, Israel is far more advanced. With such precision, how does Israel still fail to protect civilian life? How does Israel kill 1400 Palestinians in Gaza in three weeks? How does Israel kill 1000 Lebanese in the summer of 2006? How does Israel bomb schools, mosques, hospitals, police stations, water and electric storage, and UN humanitarian buildings? Why does Israel continue a blockade of Gaza, which adversely affects the civilian populace? Why does Israel continue intrusive checkpoints in the West Bank, sovereign Palestinian territory that is largely peaceful and has been for years? How can you justify the continued construction of Israeli settlements within the West Bank? Is Hamas an obstacle to peace? Yes. Are Israeli polices an impediment to peace? Yes. You cannot honestly argue that Israel’s actions have been entirely justifiable. You cannot argue that Israeli policies have not encouraged conflict and animosity. You simply cannot. Israel must learn to compromise and to act with compassion and understanding and respect for international law. If she fails to do so, war will continue inevitably. If you truly desire peace, Beng, you must make the necessary concession to breed a peaceful environment.

The distinction? Muslims never lost control of Medina. Jerusalem, however, and all of Palestine was under Arab rule for 1300 years. When Zionism called for the creation of a Jewish homeland in the late 1800s it was a call to reclaim lands lost centuries earlier. However unjust, the international community decided to carve a portion of that land out for a Jewish state, the result being the annexation of lands that Christian and Muslim Arabs had resided on for centuries. The international community did this, but it also specifically called for the city of Jerusalem to be an international zone, an open-city with no national ties. You cannot pick and choose which aspects of the partition plan you wish to accept. Israel was given an unprecedented gift in the creation of its own state on another people’s lands. Is that enough? She must now occupy Judea and Samaria as well, under misguided notions of a covenant with God? She must now occupy the holy city of Jerusalem, a city of importance to Islam, Christianity, and Judaism? Under what jsutification? A 2000 year old claim? I think not.

Hello, Exiled_At_Home
I have to indicate that I get an impression that you have read my messages only perfunctorily. For example, you ask me if I see the difference between Arab infiltration into Israel and Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria regions. Look, I’ve never made a slightest implication that there is any similarity. What I meant by bringing to your attention the fact of Arab infiltration by tens of thousands during the last decade in order to obtain Israeli citizenship is to refute your allegation that Israel treats Arabs as sub-humans. I added that people won’t agree to such an invidious status even if they are better off to a certain degree. As simple as that. Why to distort my point? I beg you to read my messages more carefully. Now I’ll try to summarize.
1. I agree with you on the point that you got a prepared presentation from Israeli official branches. But you also got the presentation from the Human Rights Watch, you got that article from an Israeli left-wing professor (and there are a lot of others). You never got anything of the kind from the Arab side. Now, you can take seriously a person’s view if and only if you can reasonably presuppose that that person can and is free to hold a diametrically opposite view if he so chooses. This holds in Israel. In the Arab society people were shot in their knees just as a warning not to … whatever. Now , I spoke with some of them sitting over a cup of coffee and smoking a cigarette on absolutely familiar and friendly basis, to the point that one guy was telling me how often he ‘does it’ with his wife etc. He was the one who said: we (not I, but we – meaning his whole village) want to be inside Israel, i.e. annexed. And then he added that nothing will come out of “those Palestinians” while he is one of them. But he will not repeat this statement in his village openly. He is not a single one. I don’t think they all love us that much. The point is that there is a dual envy-hatred attitude. Anyway their social machinery doesn’t promote statehood. I’ll add on this point later.
2. I take it that you are a good-hearted and well-intended person. And as such you assert that Israel “must make the necessary concession to breed a peaceful environment”. Well, we more than made concessions. For example, well-intended people from the so called international community together with the Israeli left pressed the centrist Israeli governments to talk with the so called PLO and its chief Arafat, which the Rabin government finally did (Rabin himself rather reluctantly and with doubts, Peres, the then foreign minister, – enthusiastically). Mind that this gentleman had been picked up and trained and propped to a degree of a national leader by the KGB in early seventies – as a part of the Soviet drive to establish strongholds around the world leaning on local “progressive and socialist forces”. About a type like this they say that he uses to devour at least half a dozen of well-intended people for breakfast without a drink to assist swallowing. Anyway, he was given the Gaza territory and later other areas including the major cities in Judea and Samaria under his control. Immediately on his arrival he started the preparation of a terror war on Israel. Also instead of founding one police force with light weapon as has been agreed, he established some seventeen different gangs armed with whatever they succeeded to smuggle. He also stole most of the money that the well-intended poured on him in euphoria of peace-making, or so they thought. Shortly, this effort resulted in a debacle that I’ve described already. The good-intended people actually brought about thousands of casualties on both sides. But having understood nothing they continue to think that more concessions will bring the desired result. In the meanwhile, the process of nation building of the so called Palestinians was blown into pieces together with Israeli buses and cafes. What you sow that’s what you reap. Hamas is a separate entity now. The PA doesn’t really have the organs to decide on anything – they only release proclamations from time to time that Israel is not OK on this or that count.
3. You also continue to expect that Israel abstains from retaliation and self-defense – “to breed a peaceful environment”. I’ll ask to imagine that the US suffers 70 thousand killed and half a million wounded and still doesn’t fight back Still these are the numbers of Israeli casualties scaled up to the US population (roughly multiplied by 50). I think it beyond reason. The US suffered 2,600 killed and smashed two regimes half the world away. How many Tallibans killed? And civilians? To scale down to Israeli proportions, it is 50 people – two buses. Israel didn’t react at all after much more than this. Absolutely. Peres said these are “the victims of peace” (1996). Only when the real sinister meaning of this phraseological pearl dawned upon him, this phrasing disappeared from the ether (others may be deride by the media, but he is immune like some N Korea chief). In the WWII (to which I refer as a paradigm of the Western democracies fight for their freedom against the militaristic dictatorial regimes, that is before those democracies entered into the stage of repudiation and deconstruction of their culture), the same number of American casualties in Pearl Harbor resulted in millions of Japanese casualties, in particular conventional bombing of Tokyo (with 400 thousand casualties) and eventually the two A-bombs. Again excuse me for possibly being too blunt, but to expect Israel to abstain from fighting takes a perverted thinking. I expect you will tell times are different, now they don’t pour bombs on civilian population in cities and so on. Right, so Israel didn’t. The ratio of civilian to fighters casualties is no more than 30% as far as the Israeli military is concerned, compared to more that 40% for the US military. The same for the British, if I’m not mistaken. And it is given much more densely populated area and also the fact that Hamas is definitely using civilian population as a shield.
Now, let us make a simple intellectual test (it is very useful to perform such exercises to clarify things for yourself). Suppose Israelis don’t react as the Arabs kill them, in hope that the Arabs will calm down after a while and decide that it has been enough. Is it realistic? How many people are you expecting Israel to sacrifice? 10 thousand, for example? Well, I’ll tell you that after 10 thousand the Arabs will feel they’ve just started. I think it’s more than obvious.
4. Legal points. You refer to “sovereign Palestinian territories”. There is no such thing except in your wishful thinking. I read articles and heard lectures on the legal issues but not being a journalist I don’t really keep references so that I could indicate to you. Anyway there are very founded views coming from lawyers specializing in international law that Israel is factually the only sovereign in the areas factually under her control considering the fact that no other authority, even if projected at previous years, came to fruition. The PA’s rule in the territories transferred to it by Israel in effect of Oslo accords is founded on the conferring authority by Israel as a sovereign power. Sovereign Palestinian territories may come into being only if the Arab population (referred to as Palestinians) organize so that it can reach a peace agreement with Israel and obtain a status of statehood in agreed upon boarders. No one knows what those boarders will be (leave alone wishful thinking) unless one knows the future. The real problem is not legalistic, but political on the practical level. And on a deeper level – cultural.
5. Again, let’s do a small intellectual exercise. Suppose Israel withdraws to the Green line – pre-6 Days war boarder. I ask you to sincerely answer whether the Arabs start peacefully building their own state or start a war with Israel. Israel has been through it more than once. Gaza is the salient example. Don’t tell me we are maintain a siege around Gaza. That’s inexact use of the term. Siege is about cutting supplies. They have supplies – dozens of trucks are passing through check points each day. There is electricity, water and petrol. There is no hunger. They also have connection via Egypt. What Israel is doing is keeping the boarder safe from smuggling in military equipment and exporting terror into Israel. Do you have any illusions that there will be an open boarder like in Western Europe? It will be a closed boarder a very long time even if some long-term truce is established with the Hamas. Closed boarders aren’t a siege. (There are comic moments. At a certain moment as the rocket fire into Israel intensified Israel threatened to cut off the electricity. Then the Hamas staged a meeting in some seemingly dark room. But the spectacle was sloppily prepared: there was a day light creeping from behind of the thick curtains). Now, these guys don’t care: they shoot rockets in that very power plant that supplies them with electricity. If the really hit it they’ll whine that Israel cut off the supply, if they don’t then they terrorize Israel anyway. Thus they lead a win-win game. They rely on the good-hearted and well-intended people to extricate them from any dire situation and castigate Israel. And they are seldom wrong. The good-hearted and well-intended usually satisfy their hopes.
There are previous examples of Israeli attempts to disengage. All ended by intensified fighting. Even if Israel transfers all the so called settlers from Judea and Samaria it will have to maintain military presence. So what’s the net gain to anyone except to those who obsessively want Jews out, just for the sake of a moment’s satisfaction? To withdraw the army also? It will take very short time before the army will have to move in as Israel will be paralyzed: no traffic, no air traffic as all the major highways and the Intl A/P will be under fire. This is the reality. And you are waving with the UN resolution. Again, Israel made a very serious and more than humanly possible attempt to disengage and give the Arabs their chance to organize themselves into a state. It is undeniable. And it is also undeniable that the Arabs blew it. And that, I’ll add, not without the very active assistance of the good-hearted and well-intended people from the “international community”.
6. Finally, again your attributing such a weight and significance to the Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria is an idée fixe. I think from what I’ve written above and also in the previous passages it has to become clear that Israeli settlements aren’t a real problem neither for the Arab economy (rather the contrary is correct) nor to the peace talks if there are any as Israel made it clear back in 90′s that it was ready to withdraw if the agreement is reached (Barak’s proposition and Arafat’s refusal, remember). So let me tell you that you persist to concentrate on a fly sitting on an elephant, but you refuse to see the elephant.
And that elephant is that the Arabs are still leading war of extermination against Israel. After having failed in war of the Western type, i.e. wars between armies with tanks, aircraft, infantry regiments etc., they changed the tactics to undermining Israel with terror while leading a broad propaganda campaign to delegitimize Israel. And they use the Arab population in Judea and Samaria as a battering rim.
Moreover, that elephant is the war by the Arabs on the free and democratic societies by the means available to them (obviously, they are militarily weak and can’t wage anything on the scale of the WWII). Israel is just a forefront position in that battle. You can’t miss their attack on Western European countries and on the US. And it is not only the terror attacks per se but also the ensuing encroachment on the legal system (West German judge acquitting a husband who was beating his wife on the grounds that this is acceptable behavior in their culture – just to mention one example) and on freedom of speech, etc. There is no other way but to prevail in this long struggle.
However, on this front the good-hearted and well-intended people are extremely handy and are readily being manipulated. They play the role that was defined quite a long time ago by Lenin as he referred to the Western intelligentsia: useful fools.
7. This took me late into the night hours. But I wanted to finalize our lively discussion. Even if I didn’t succeed in moving you a jot, at least I formulated some things for myself. I’d like I’ve written more concisely, but at least I exercised my English. (Suppose the Arabs drive us into the sea and suppose I manage to reach the American soil, will you give me a recommendation to go into the journalistic profession? – bad joke).
8. At this point let me bid you good bye and best wishes.

Correction: everywhere I’ve written well-intended it should be well-intentioned of course. The result of late hours writing and copy and paste on the computer.

Hello, Exiled_At_Home
I still find it necessary to refer to your recent remarks. You have stated: “Israel was given an unprecedented gift in the creation of its own state on another people’s lands”. Jews got their state as a result of their being on the side of the winners of the WWII while the Arabs were collaborators of the Nazi regime. Again, each one makes its historic choices, with the following consequences. Regarding the world’s “gifts” to the Jews – as a Jew I would willingly pack all the world’s “gifts” to the Jews which will constitute a huge pile of you guess what, and unhesitatingly send it down the drain. Conversely, regarding the gifts of the Jews to the world, I surmise it would be a reasonably correct guess that you would think more than twice before getting rid of them and, finally, would hardly dare to – there would be no Christianity to start with (also no Islam), I daresay no Western culture as it is (not forgetting to tribute owed to ancient Greece).
You say “another people’s land”. Before Israel’s creation the sovereignty over the Land of Israel (dubbed Palestine by the emperor Adrianus) was in the British hands. At that period Arabs flocked into the Land in parallel with the Jewish immigration as a result of the considerable and quick economic development (from Syria, Yemen, Egypt and other regions – their surnames attest to their origin. This also underlies the unsuccessful attempts to lump them into one nation – the Palestinians). Before that there was rather weak and remote rule of the Turkish Ottoman empire. The Land was rather empty – confer Mark Twain’s book on his visit to the Holy Land at the end of the 19th century. You view with modern eyes and ascribe your present day notions to historic situations – that is irrelevant.

beng~
I wrote: Israel was given an unprecedented gift in the creation of its own state on another people’s lands.
.
To which you replied: as a Jew I would willingly pack all the world’s “gifts” to the Jews which will constitute a huge pile of you guess what, and unhesitatingly send it down the drain.
~
So, what does that statement mean, exactly? Is this intended to convey the position that Jews have been unfairly treated throughout history? Or, is it merely a refutation of my characterization of the creation of Israel as a gift? If it is the former, that is irrelevant. If it is the latter, then how would you characterized the creation of Israel? In the 20th century was it common practice to simply carve pre-existing territory and hand it to a people spread around the world for them to create a state?
~
The Land was rather empty… Haha! Classic. The ‘land without a people’ deflection. More accurately, of course, is the land without a Jewish people. That’s what you meant, right? By 1947, even after years of vigorous immigration of Jews following the 1917 Balfour Declaration, Palestine (Israel/West Bank/Gaza) still had a nearly 3:1 Arab to Jew ratio. Prior to the Balfour Declaration, the Jewish population was nearly non-existent in the Holy Land. Jerusalem was never a barren city. It has always been a thriving hub in the region. The lands surrounding it were farmed and lived on by millions prior to the re-appearance of Jewish populations. You act as if the region’s history starts, stops, and restarts again with the presence of Jews in the region.

Hello, Exiled_At_Home
1. By referring to the world’s “gifts” to the Jews I meant the 1st possibility. It’s rather emotional reaction to your statement, and is irrelevant to the subject. On that I agree with you.
2. However, it is supercilious to view the creation of Israel as a “gift” to the Jews by whom? The grateful world? There is no such thing. Countries that voted for creation of Israel had their interests. For example, Stalin was planning Soviet penetration into the region through Jewish predominantly left or even communist inclined population at that time. (A propos manipulations). Together with the Soviets came all the eastern bloc countries. A Short time after that they changed sides and started building on Arabs.
3. Again, in general the Jews were on the victorious side in the WWII vs. the Arab collaboration with the Nazis. And then the Jews succeeded to make good on the diplomatic situation of those days. That’s what I mean that the Jews earned it. Why do you have any problem with that?
4. I didn’t mean that the Land was empty in absolute sense. But there were no millions. To your information: At the turn of the XX-th century the population of the Land-of-Israel – and that includes 25 thousand sq.km of of the Western part (to the west of the river Jordan) and somewhat greater area to the east of the Jordan river, say, some 60 thousand sq. km. – was 400,000 people. That’s rather empty.
Just before the First WW, the population of Jerusalem was 90,000, of which two thirds were Jews. I’ve just checked this data for you in the academic sources. Jews never left Jerusalem, and there was continuous Jewish presence in the land (mostly in cities like Safed, Tiberias, Hebron) before the modern age immigration started in 1870s. Jerusalem was never a thriving hub since the Arab conquest until the beginning of the XX century or the end of the XIX-th. But is all this actually relevant either? The fact is that the Land was really in lethargy from the destruction of the ancient Jewish state to the reappearance of massive Jewish population in the modern era. I don’t mean there is providence in it, it’s just that the Land-of-Israel was a backyard in the Arab world. As were most of the territories under their rule, centers being in Damascus first, then moving to Bagdad in the east, Egypt in N Africa and Spain in the west.
5. Still, you don’t refer to what I’ve written earlier, rather lengthily though, but worth reading to get a more comprehensive and less formalistic picture of the situation.
6. If you choose the end of the XIX-th century as a zero time point when the proportion of the Jewish population was probably at its lowest, then why not choose the beginning of the 1-st century AD? Or we say that all that is history, interesting to moot over but irrelevant to the present-day political moves (though constituting a psychological background), and each side makes its steps to its best judgment.And in this regard Arabs were not very successful. Probably to your distress, but then this is also irrelevant.