Thursday, July 14, 2011
Caroline Glick On Israeli Sovreignty Over Judea And Samaria
On June 20th of this year, columnist Caroline Glick spoke at an event called "Israeli Sovereignty Over Judea and Samaria" in Israel ( h/t Carl, and kudos to Paris David Blumenthal for the footage).
What she had to say about strategic considerations, history, Jewish empowerment and the past failures of the Israeli Left in dealing with this situation are all spot on and worth listening to, and there's nothing here I seriously disagree with. But there's an important question I feel she glosses over.
In 1967, Israel was attacked by Jordan and as a consequence, Israel recaptured the areas of Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria (AKA the West Bank) that Jordan had illegally occupied in 1948 and ethnically cleansed the Jews out of.
At that point, the Israel Labor government could justifiably have repatriated the Arabs living there back to the country they held their citizenship in, which was Jordan and annexed the area, as they did with theGolan Heights and East Jerusalem. Such things usually happen after a war when territory changes hands.
This would have been particularly appropriate after the Arab League's Khartoum Declaration, which responded to an Israeli attempt at diplomacy with 'no peace, no negotiation, no recognition.'
Instead the Israeli government essentially sat on the matter,leaving the situation to fester for 44 years.
At this point, I have to wonder how Ms. Glick plans to deal with the Arabs living in the region, who have been propagandized and trained to hate Jews and Israel for two generations.
This is not the phony 'demographics bomb' myth, which I've already disproved elsewhere. The problem is not maintaining a Jewish majority in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean, but of trying to absorb and deal with what's at least predominantly a hostile, violent and incompatible element.
What that's going to mean, in real terms, is a partition of Judea and Samaria of some kind that may or may not have anything to do with the pre 1967 lines or anything else Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah want. Or it may mean another war, followed by the repatriation of non-Israeli Arabs across the Jordan.
Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Rob: Or it may mean another war, followed by the repatriation of non-Israeli Arabs across the Jordan.
You do realize that means expelling more than two million Palestinians, most of whom have deep roots in the area. That will not lead to peace.
War is hell, Zachriel,and of necessity there are winners and losers. I merely address the question, because the possibility of a 'Palestinian' state living next to Israel peacefully is impossible.
Several points here, Zachriel:
1)Keeping the 'Palestinians' in Judea and Samaria hasn't led to peace either, has it? Neither did bringing in Yasser Arafat and his thugs from Tunis to create what amounts to a hostile presence on Israel's borders.
2) a 'Palestinian' state is unlikely to lead to peace either. The 'Palestinians' are educated in their mosques,media and schools to hate Jews and to regard Israel as part of occupied 'Palestine' which they will eventually obtain by removing the Jews. Their barbaric and violent terrorism towards Israeli civilians should give you a clue in this regard.
3)A 'Palestinian' state led by Fatah is unlikely to last more than a few months. The only thing stopping a genocidal Hamas from taking over is the IDF's presence in the region.Remember what happened to the shiny new well equipped army we built for Abbas in Gaza?
4) I engage in conjecture here, but something tells me that you might just believe that expelling 750,000 Jews from their homes, all of whom have deep and long standing roots in the area will lead to peace.Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but if so, why the double standard? Is it that the Jews are expected to be more docile about it?
5)Many of the 'Palestinians' don't have the deep roots you speak of, since they were either colonists from Jordan after 1948 or still claim 'refugee' status. Also, unlike the Jews, they have somewhere else to go. Jordan was originally created by Britain in 1922 as the Arab 'Palestinian' state and is about 75% 'Palestinian', which is why Yasser Arafat tried to overthrow the Bedouin King Hussein in 1970 and came close to succeeding.There are also 21 other Arab states available that are mostly underpopulated.
6) Actually getting most of the 'Palestinians' out of Judea and Samaria might just lead to peace,if we parse peace to mean an end to hostilities. That's about the best you can hope for, given the mindset and attitude toward Jews.
Again, I merely address the question.If the 'Palestinians' had educated their people for peace as the Oslo Accords required and had proven their ability to live with Jews in peace and equality, things would be much different.
Rob: War is hell, Zachriel,and of necessity there are winners and losers.
Yes, there are. There are also war crimes. Ethnic cleansing is a war crime. It's wrong when Muslim nations force out Jews and Christians. And it would be wrong if Israel expelled the Palestinians from the West Bank.
Yes Zachriel,
And some of those war crimes include deliberately targeting civilians, using things lik ean anti-tank weapon on a clearly marked school bus, locating military facilities in civilian buildings, using Red Crescent ambulances to transport weapons and combatants and holding prisoners without allowing them Red Cross access.
The 'Palestinians' have committed ALL of these offenses repeatedly, but I don't hear any condemnation of you for it.
BTW, peacefully repatriating civilians who are not citizens of a country outside its territory is quite different from ethnic cleansing.It's called deportation.
In fact, even repatriating civilians who are citizens of another country back to their native land is not ethnic cleansing.Ask the Germans who were repatriated back to Germany from Eastern Poland after WWII. No one considers that a 'war crime'.
Ethnic cleansing is when military force and murder is used to drive civilians forcibly away from an area. That's exactly what happened to the Jews in the Old City and the historic communities in Judea and Samaria like Hebron, Gush Etzion and Ariel in 1948.In fact, it happened all over the Arab world. How else do you think East Jerusalem got most of its Arab population?
You write:It's wrong when Muslim nations force out Jews and Christians.
It's not a matter of 'when'..it was already done, and it is a continuing and ongoing effort that the 'Palestinians' have made into a national project. In fact, it's about the only thing that unites them in any fashion.
Rob: And some of those war crimes include deliberately targeting civilians, using things lik ean anti-tank weapon on a clearly marked school bus, locating military facilities in civilian buildings, using Red Crescent ambulances to transport weapons and combatants and holding prisoners without allowing them Red Cross access.
Yes, those are all war crimes.
Rob: In fact, even repatriating civilians who are citizens of another country back to their native land is not ethnic cleansing.
Palestinians have been living in the area for centuries. Expelling them would also be a war crime.
Hello Zachriel,
I'm afraid you're simply incorrect,on two counts.
First, there were no 'Palestinians' prior to 1967 unless one was talking about Jews in what;s now Israel. The Arabs in Judea and Samaria were all Jordanian citizens. As a matter of fact, many of them \were deliberately moved into the area as colonists by Jordan, which is close to 80% 'Palestinian after 1948,; and many of the rest have been claiming refugee status for about three generations now.
Mahmoud Abbas is a good example.His family lived in Tsvat(Safed) and voluntarily left by his own admission to make way for the great Jihad against the Jews in 1948. After it failed, they emigrated to Syria and then relocated to Samaria and became Jordanians long before they were 'Palestinians'.
So much for the vast majority of them living there for centuries.
Second according to the Fourth Geneva Convention, repatriating citizens of an enemy combatant back to their own country's territory is not a war crime.It's not even a war crime after hostilities cease vis a vis Germans repatriated after WWII to Germany from Poland. Many of those Germans actually had been living in what was East Prussia for centuries.
Jordan even passed a law stating that any inhabitant of the area we're talking about who was not a Jew ( that was literally the language used)was a Jordanian citizen.
Which brings us back to the essential question, Zachriel.Since the 'Palestinians' have amply demonstrated that they have no ability or desire to live with Jews in peace and equality, should Jews living in their homes in Judea and Samaria be forcibly removed to accommodate the Arab's bigotry?
And should Israel accept indefensible borders with groups like Hamas and Fatah that are openly genocidal or committed to a Jew-Free area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean?
Those are simple, yes or no questions I think you need to address.
Regards,
Rob
Rob: First, there were no 'Palestinians' prior to 1967 unless one was talking about Jews in what;s now Israel.
There were people living there, a great majority of whom trace their ancestry to ancient times, which is supported by genetic evidence, which also supports their common ancestry.
http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/01/shared-genetic-heritage-of-jews-and.html
Whether you recognize the Palestinian people or not, they are a people with deep roots in the area.
Rob: The Arabs in Judea and Samaria were all Jordanian citizens.
And before that they were under the British Mandate. That doesn't make them English. Others were refugees from Israel.
Rob: according to the Fourth Geneva Convention, repatriating citizens of an enemy combatant back to their own country's territory is not a war crime.
Yes, but the Palestinians have been living in the area since ancient times. That includes the right of return to territory now claimed by Israel.
Rob: Since the 'Palestinians' have amply demonstrated that they have no ability or desire to live with Jews in peace and equality, should Jews living in their homes in Judea and Samaria be forcibly removed to accommodate the Arab's bigotry?
No. Ethnic cleansing is a war crime. Nor will it lead to peace. Peace will only come when both sides recognize the rights and concerns of the other party.
Zachriel,
Again, I'm afraid you're simply incorrect.
Actually, most of the people who you refer to as 'Palestinians' were NOT living there in ancient times, since that area was part of the Kingdom of Israel and populated by Jews.
Further, most of the 'Palestinians' are of fairly recent origin , coming from Lebanon, the Hejaz, Syria and like Yasser Arafat, Egypt.
Arab migration to Palestine increased only after the 1880's when the Ottoman Sultan encouraged Jews from Eastern Europe to settle and join their compatriots already living there and they created prosperity in what had been an unprofitable, mostly depopulated backwater.
This increased after the Brits took over, because they allowed unlimited migration of Arabs while restricting immigration of Jews. The biggest inflow of Arabs to Palestine occurred during WWII, when there was a labor shortage because so many of Palestine's Jews were in uniform fighting Hitler. Others were deliberately settled there by Jordan in an attempt to colonize the area, once its Jews were removed.
There's also the inconvenient fact that there's no true accounting of how many 'Palestinians' are actual refugees and how many were simply indigent Arabs in the areas on Israel's borders who decided to take advantage of the fact that UNRWA was passing out free food, money and lodging in exchange for any unsubstantiated claim of refugee status. Even the head of UNRWA at that time admitted it.
You also ignore that Jordan, which comprises 79% of the original Mandate was deliberately set up by Britain as a state for the Arabs in the area who regarded themselves as Jordanians and were happy to do so until Israel took over the area in 1967. And they had legal Jordanian citizenship.So your claim that they 'weren't Jordanians' simply doesn't hold water.
You also claim that the 'Palestinians' have some kind of 'right of return' to Israel. Why should they, after actively participating in an attempt to exterminate every Jew there? And why, when the almost one million Jewish refugees from the Arab world who were forcibly expelled after 1948 do not?
Let's also deal with your final statement: "Peace will only come when both sides recognize the rights and concerns of the other party."
I totally agree with that statement.
Israel, by making the Arabs who chose to stay there full citizens with equality under its laws has demonstrated its ability to recognize the rights and concerns of the Arabs. It also did so by not doing to the Arabs of Judea and Samaria what the Arabs did to the Jews after they invaded the area in 1948 and simply expelling them.
So, exactly how do you plan to have the non-Israeli Arabs reciprocate? They've already said they have no intention of doing so and thus constitute a hostile and irredentist element, so the idea of 'one state for two peoples ' is a non-starter. Nor will they allow any Jews to live in any area they control.
This also gives us an answer to the other simple question I posed which you ignored: should Israel accept indefensible borders with groups like Hamas and Fatah that are openly genocidal or committed to a Jew-Free area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean?
They'd have to be suicidal to do so.
We thus come full circle to see that my original argument, that peace - which I define in this case as an absence of hostilities - will only come when the area is partitioned to provide Israel with defensible borders, or when the 'Palestinians' are repatriated to Jordan is proven.
Quod Erat Demonstradum, Zachriel.
Regards,
Rob
Rob: Actually, most of the people who you refer to as 'Palestinians' were NOT living there in ancient times, since that area was part of the Kingdom of Israel and populated by Jews.
Huh? There were plenty of non-Jewish people in Palestine in the time of Solomon.
Rob: Further, most of the 'Palestinians' are of fairly recent origin , coming from Lebanon, the Hejaz, Syria and like Yasser Arafat, Egypt.
Arafat's father was from Gaza.
Rob: Arab migration to Palestine increased only after the 1880's ...
You're ignoring the genetic data. High-resolution chromosome analysis shows strong geographic substructuring to Arabs in the highlands of Samaria and Judea.
Rob: You also claim that the 'Palestinians' have some kind of 'right of return' to Israel. Why should they, after actively participating in an attempt to exterminate every Jew there?
You can't hold every individual responsible. Most people were civilians, many of whom were forced out by Israelis.
Rob: Israel, by making the Arabs who chose to stay there full citizens with equality under its laws has demonstrated its ability to recognize the rights and concerns of the Arabs.
You mean allowed to stay. Documentary evidence proves that Israel not only expelled Palestinians, but armed groups committed massacres that caused people to flee.
Rob: This also gives us an answer to the other simple question I posed which you ignored: should Israel accept indefensible borders with groups like Hamas and Fatah that are openly genocidal or committed to a Jew-Free area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean?
Of course not. Israel has every right to self-defense. Nevertheless, simply waving your hands doesn't make the Palestinian people go away, or lessen the atrocity of your proposed ethnic cleansing of millions of Palestinians.
If Israel were to do such a thing, it would destabilize the entire region and probably lead to another war. Of course Israel has more moral and practical sense than that.
Huh? There were plenty of non-Jewish people in Palestine in the time of Solomon.
But hardly any living in the area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. You forget the extent of ancient Israel.
Arafat's father was from Gaza.
Which was then part of (drumroll) Egypt. And Aragat was born and raised in Cairo AS AN EGYPTIAN.
You can't hold every individual responsible. Most people were civilians, many of whom were forced out by Israelis.
Nonsense. 'Palestinian' participation in violence against the Jews was widespread, and had been for years. Their political leader, Haj-Amin al-Husseini translated 'Mein Kampf' into Arabic, raised troops for Hitler and planned a death camp in Shechem ( Nablus) with Eichmann for Palestine's Jews. Also, if the Israelis, 'forced out' all these people, they did a damned poor job of it since 20% of Israel's population remained Arab.
You mean allowed to stay. Documentary evidence proves that Israel not only expelled Palestinians, but armed groups committed massacres that caused people to flee.
No, I mean full citizens with equal legal rights including the vote. You've obviously never been there. And the only thing that could be called a 'massacre' was Der Yassin which we can discuss separately. It pales next to what the Arabs did to the Jews routinely.
Of course not. Israel has every right to self-defense. Nevertheless,simply waving your hands doesn't make the Palestinian people go away, or lessen the atrocity of your proposed ethnic cleansing of millions of Palestinians.
I didn't propose anything. I merely stated that peace, (in this case, defined as an absence of hostilities) will consist of either a partition the 'Palestinians' won't accept or their repatriation to Jordan, probably after another war.Since you concede Israel has the right to defensible borders, those are the options given the violent and irredentist nature of the 'Palestinians'.
Oh, BTW, the 'science' purporting to link the 'Palestinians' with the Hebrews genetically is agenda driven, with the idea of 'proving' that the 'Palestinians' have the rights to Israel, not the Jews. It's kind of like the stats that 'prove' the the Arabs are going to be the majority between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, so the Jews had better give them whatever they want and hope for the best.
At this point, it's quite obvious to me that your view of things is that the Israelis owe the 'Palestinians' something. We disagree. You have yet to explain how the Israelis are supposed to live next to a population that favors Hamas' genocidal agenda by 73% and is unwilling to live with a single Jew in their presence.
Having devoted a great deal of my valuable time to this without your seriously addressing this question, I think I'm going to just let this lie where it is.
Eventually, there's either going to be an expulsion or partition.
Yasser Arafat said it best on Jordanian TV, in Arabic when people took him to task for signing an agreement with the Jews. He explained that it was a temporary agreement of convenience, citing the Peace of Hubadiyah and said:
"Either we will push the Jews into the sea or they will push us into the sea."
Until that mentality changes, it will end up as I said, eventually.
Rob: Oh, BTW, the 'science' purporting to link the 'Palestinians' with the Hebrews genetically is agenda driven, with the idea of 'proving' that the 'Palestinians' have the rights to Israel, not the Jews.
Then it didn't work, because it shows that they both have roots in the area, and are closely related. In any case, you can be sure to file your rebuttal in the journal Genetics.
Rob: At this point, it's quite obvious to me that your view of things is that the Israelis owe the 'Palestinians' something.
Each side has grievances. Each side will have to give up something to achieve peace.
Rob: You have yet to explain how the Israelis are supposed to live next to a population that favors Hamas' genocidal agenda by 73% and is unwilling to live with a single Jew in their presence.
Conflict and hate go together. Thinking that ethnically cleansing millions of people will lead to peace is folly.
Rob: Having devoted a great deal of my valuable time to this without your seriously addressing this question, I think I'm going to just let this lie where it is.
Of course, you will publish our comments.
Yes, 'science'. We've already seen what agenda-driven science looks like with the 'global warming' fiasco.In any case, the cultural evolution is far different. Let me know when you find a case of the IDF deliberately decapitating a 3-month-old, or shooting a baby in a stroller with a sniper's rifle.
As far as each side having to give up something to achieve peace, you might tell that to the 'Palestinians'. Abbas and his buddies have already said they're not willing to make a single concession, and based on past performance their word isn't to be trusted anyway, a primary necessity for any negotiations.
As far as I'm concerned, you seem to have not come up with any concrete rebuttal to my original argument, which is that given the reality of the situation, the end game will either be a partition that the 'Palestinians' will never accept or repatriation to Jordan after another war, except to say that in your opinion it would be 'wrong' and not bring peace, something you provide no evidence of.
Remember, in this case, I define 'peace' as an absence of hostilities, which is about the best you're going to get.
As I pointed out in our opening exchange, having the hostile 'Palestinians' on Israel's borders ala' the status quo hasn't led to peace either, and it never will.
As for publishing future comments, depends on what they are.Reasoned discourse is always welcomed, but after awhile it becomes a case of 'no new tale to tell.'
Rob: As for publishing future comments, depends on what they are.Reasoned discourse is always welcomed, ...
Then our comments should not be censored, as they were on a previous thread.
Rob: but after awhile it becomes a case of 'no new tale to tell.'
If you decide not to publish our comments, please leave a note for your readers so that they don't think that we have not responded.
Rob: Yes, 'science'. We've already seen what agenda-driven science looks like with the 'global warming' fiasco.In any case, the cultural evolution is far different.
Yes, but that's not what you said. The genetic evidence has been confirmed by a number of different studies, however, the phylogeny is only clear for the y-chromosome. What is amazing is how well the paternal lineage of Jews has been maintained through the Diaspora.
Rob: given the reality of the situation, the end game will either be a partition that the 'Palestinians' will never accept or repatriation to Jordan after another war,
There may be another war, but the longer the peace holds, the less likely that will be. People have a vested interest in some sort of resolution, even if that resolution isn't perfect. There will eventually be two states, and Israel will never expel millions of Palestinians from the West Bank.
Rob: I define 'peace' as an absence of hostilities, which is about the best you're going to get.
A lasting peace must entail mutual recognition, agreed borders and security guarantees.
Zachriel,
Everyone should have the right to free speech. That doesn't guarantee a right to be heard, and I decline to publish comments for various reasons, which is my right. You certainly can't complain you haven't had a fair hearing.
And by the way.. what is this 'our' and 'we' nonsense, the royal plural, or evidence of a split personality?
Contrary to your claim, I have not changed my position one iota on the supposed genetic evidence. I merely added another element. It is both agenda driven and takes no account of cultural factors, which you now admit is correct.
There may be another war, but the longer the peace holds, the less likely that will be...A lasting peace must entail mutual recognition, agreed borders and security guarantees.
The first statement has no evidence or validity whatever, and there's a good deal of evidence to the contrary. And the second one takes no account of the first requirement of any negotiations, the trustworthiness and willingness to keep agreements of both parties.Without that, 'security guarantees' vis a vus the 'Palestinians' are as worthless as the ones made in the 1930's with Hitler.
Their track record speaks for itself.
Regards,
Rob
Post a Comment