Posted on 07/01/2009 10:49:25 AM PDT by SJackson
The NY Times enlisted Tony Judt to launch a broadside against Jewish building in Judea-Samaria, the Golan, and annexed areas of Jerusalem (6/22).
Mr. Judt started with history, including his having lived on an Israeli kibbutz.
[I found the history selective and irrelevant to his topic. It makes him appear like a good Jew, the way antisemites like to say that some of their best friends are Jews. Half the antisemites would accept him. He is notoriously anti-Zionist.]
The main point of the Op-Ed was that settlements in the areas named above are illegal, as contrasted with legal settlements in what now is the State of Israel.
[Poor contrast. The British Mandatory government banned Jewish immigration, land purchase, and construction. Britain thereby violated its Mandate, but called Zionist efforts “illegal.” Do not give credence to prejudiced claims of illegality.]
Judt refers to the areas named above as “Palestinian land seized in war and occupied ever since.” [Calling them seized in war makes Israel’s possession of them seem illegitimate. But Judt omits the circumstances. The wars were started by Arab aggressors bent on genocide. International law provides that a country may retain such territory for its own security from future invasion. This makes sense. Thus for all of Judt’s references to legality, he misstates by omission what international law allows.]
[All of Israel was “seized” in war. That is because the Arabs did not let Israel become independent; the Jews had to fight back for it. Arab aggression forfeited any Arab rights to those areas of the Palestine Mandate, which was set up to form a future Jewish state. That Mandate had become part of international law, law that Judt omitted to mention, too. Therefore, the areas formerly of the Mandate that Israel ended up controlling were not foreign countries, but areas to which, when the Arabs rejected the terms of the Mandate, Israel had the best claim to. Then Israel does not occupy them and does not build illegally in them.]
[The UN did not require any states in the Mandate. It merely suggested two more states, after Jordan was split off, and that Jerusalem be internationalized. Jordan invaded. Jordan tried to starve the Jews out of the New City of Jerusalem and did force them out of the Old City of Jerusalem. After the Old City reverted to Israeli control, and Jews were able to visit their holiest site, there, under what rationale should Israel building be declared illegal there? Judt did not refer to Jordan’s illegal seizure of the Old City and of Judea-Samaria, which it tried to annex. Neither did he refer to Egypt‘s similar seizure of Gaza. Judt uses elective mention and selective logic.]
[Judt bases his case on the Geneva Conventions. Israel didn’t sign them. The Arabs didn’t, either, and their terrorism is an affront to it. The Conventions intend to stop Nazi-like aggression and sending their own people into another country. Israel didn’t commit aggression; Judea, Samaria, and Gaza were not in another country. The Golan was Syrian, but Israel annexed it. Geneva does not apply.]
[Furthermore, Jewish settlers didn’t displace Arabs. The Territories are not foreign to the Jewish people but part of their homeland.]
“…taken together, E. Jerusalem, the W. Bank, and the Golan Heights constitute a homogeneous demographic bloc nearly the size of the District of Columbia…Some ‘settlement.’” [I don’t understand “homogeneous demographic bloc.”]
[Nobody calls the whole area a “settlement.” They call the separate towns “settlements.” “Nearly the size of the District of Columbia” signifies how small the area is. Judt omitted the key fact that Jewish settlements comprise about 5% of the total area. Infinitesimal! Total Arab land mass exceeds America’s. Why the fuss?]
Why did PM Netanyahu choose Bar-Ilan U. at which to give a speech not accepting the so-called two-state formula? He did it, because that university is “the heartland of rabbinical intransigence where Yigal Amir learned to hate PM Y. Rabin before heading off to assassinate him in 2005.”
[What rabbinical intransigence? Not explained. Is it like the documented Arafat intransigence? Not explained. Amir was prompted by an agent provocateur. Armed with blanks, he fired at Rabin’s back, leaving no blood and Rabin capable of jumping into a limousine. It drove Rabin to a hospital, where he ended up with a bullet in the chest that broke his back. Amir couldn’t have fired that later bullet and from behind Rabin. If he had, Rabin could not have jumped into a limousine. The case was a set-up, a cover-up, and a smear. But Judt brings in this irrelevant, emotional guilt-by-association so as to smear the settler movement.]
According to Judt, Israel is America’s “closest ally.” [Actually, Britain is. But if Israel were, why is Judt trying to get America to make Israel vulnerable to still another Arab assault? Judt stresses legality, but what about genocide that his notion of legality would facilitate?]
He suggests that if Netanyahu avoids expelling the Jews from the areas mentioned, “Israel’s political elite would breathe an unmerited sigh of relief.” [They might, because it would avoid trauma, but Judt implies ignorance of Israel’s political elite being largely appeasement-minded.]
[Judt makes it seem as if Netanyahu were trying to dupe Obama. Will this Op.-Ed anger Obama? What does Judt think Obama is trying to do to Netanyahu, in pretending to be a friend of Israel? Netanyahu is deceptive, too, however. No reason to think Netanyahu has become pro-settler.]
The U.S. gives Israel about $2.8 billion a year. Judt claims that this enables Israel to settle Judea-Samaria. [That money is equivalent to the interest that the U.S. charges Israel for a loan long ago, and is a small proportion of Israel’s budget. Therefore, I see this financial criticism as an attempt to harm Israel. Why doesn’t Judt suggest ending U.S. aid to Egypt, used to prepare another war on Israel?]
If you'd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
In 2003 Judt advocated the One State solution, a non-Jewish Israel.
Anyone notice that Obama has never called Israel the “Jewish State” even when he is advocating a Palestinian state.
Do you want to buy a reporter cheap? Not sure there are any I’d want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.