Posted on 04/19/2002 7:01:18 AM PDT by iav2
It's time to snap out of Arab fantasy land
Mark Steyn - National Post
So what do you think of this Israeli "massacre" at the Jenin refugee camp?
In the British accounts of the alleged worst human-rights atrocity since, oh, the Dutch took charge at Srebrenica, you can't help noticing a curious sameness. All reports rely on the same couple of eyewitnesses -- "Kamal Anis, a labourer" (The Times), "A quiet, sad-looking young man called Kamal Anis" (The Independent), "Kamal Anis, 28" (The Daily Telegraph) -- and the same handful of victims -- "A man named only as Bashar once lived there" (The Telegraph), "the burned remains of a man, Bashar" (The Evening Standard), "Bashir died in agony" (The Times). You'd think with so many thousands massacred there'd be a bigger selection of victims and distraught loved ones, wouldn't you? But apparently not. I do hope Fleet Street's herd-like experts aren't falling for the old native spin machine yet again -- cf. "the mighty Pashtun warrior, humbler of empires"; "the brutal Afghan winter"; etc.
"All British officials tend to become pro-Arab, or, perhaps, more accurately anti-Jew," wrote Sir John Hope-Simpson in the 1920s wrapping up a stint in the British Mandate of Palestine. "Personally, I can quite well understand this trait. The helplessness of the fellah appeals to the British official. The offensive assertion of the Jewish immigrant is, on the other hand, repellent." Progressive humanitarianism, as much as old-school colonialism, prefers its clientele "helpless," and, despite Iranian weaponry and Iraqi money and the human sacrifice of its schoolchildren, the Palestinians have been masters at selling their "helplessness" to the West.
Odd, isn't it? The Americans are routinely accused of being (in Pat Buchanan's phrase) Israel's amen corner. But Washington is at least prepared to offer the odd, qualified criticism of Sharon. The rest of the world, by contrast, is happy to parrot Yasser's talking points without modifying a single semi-colon. In the last month, I've found as many Jew-haters on the Continent as in the Middle East, but the difference is that the Arabs are fierce in their hatred, no matter how contorted their arguments, while the Europeans are lazy, off-hand Jew-haters -- they don't need arguments, they're happy to let the Arabs supply the script. Thus, the extraordinary resolution this week by the UN Human Rights Commission which accuses Israel of many and varied human rights violations, makes no mention of suicide bombers, and endorses the movement for a Palestinian state by "all available means, including armed struggle" -- i.e., terrorism. The resolution could have been drafted by the Arab League or the PLO. Forty of the 53 nations on the Commission approved it, including six EU members: Austria, Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. Only five countries could summon the will to vote against: Britain, Canada, Germany, the Czech Republic and Guatemala. (The U.S. is not a member of the HRC, having been kicked off by a coalition of Euro-Arab schemers.)
This is only the most extreme example of how the less sense the Arabs make the more the debate is framed in their terms. For all the tedious bleating of the Euroninnies, what Israel is doing is perfectly legal. Even if you sincerely believe that "Chairman" Arafat is entirely blameless when it comes to the suicide bombers, when a neighbouring jurisdiction is the base for hostile incursions, a sovereign state has the right of hot pursuit. Britain has certainly availed herself of this internationally recognized principle: In the 19th century, when the Fenians launched raids on Canada from upstate New York, the British thought nothing of infringing American sovereignty to hit back -- and Washington accepted they were entitled to do so. But the rights every other sovereign state takes for granted are denied to Israel. "The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews," wrote America's great longshoreman philosopher Eric Hoffer after the 1967 war. "Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem ... But everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab ... Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious it must sue for peace. Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world." Thus, the massive population displacements in Europe at the end of the Second World War are forever, but those in Palestine a mere three years later must be corrected and reversed. On the Continent, losing wars comes with a territorial price: The Germans aren't going to be back in Danzig any time soon. But, in the Middle East, no matter how often the Arabs attack Israel and lose, their claims to their lost territory manage to be both inviolable but endlessly transferable.
So even the so-called "two-state solution" subscribes to an Arafatist view of the situation. Creating yet another fetid Arab dictatorship in the West Bank would be, technically, a "three-state solution" and, indeed, a second Palestinian state, Jordan, whose population has always been majority Palestinian. It was created in the original "two-state settlement" 80 years ago, when the British partitioned their new Mandate of Palestine, carving off the western three-quarters into a territory called "Transjordan" and keeping the surviving eastern quarter under the name "Palestine." They did this for two reasons: First, they needed to stop one of the Hashemite boys, Abdullah, from marching on Syria and the best they could come up with was to halt him in Amman and suggest he serve as interim governor; but secondly, Churchill, as Colonial Secretary, thought the fairest way to fulfill Britain's pledges to both Arabs and Jews during the Great War was by confining Zionists to a Jewish National Home west of the Jordan and creating a separate Arab entity in Palestine east of the Jordan. The only thing he got wrong was the names: If instead of inventing the designation "Transjordan," he'd just called the eastern territory "Palestine" and the west "Israel" (or "Judah"), the Arafatist claim would be a much tougher sell.
The Zionists have been trading "land for peace" ever since the Great War, and the result is they've got hardly any land and less peace than ever before. As early as 1921, Chaim Weizmann wrote to Churchill protesting the ever shrinking borders of the potential Jewish homeland. To the north, Britain had surrendered traditionally Palestinian land to France in fixing the Mandate's border with Lebanon and Syria and, by giving the eastern three-quarters to Abdullah, had removed the rich fields of Gilead, Moab and Edom. The 1947 UN Partition took more land -- a partition of the previous partition -- but the Zionists accepted it. In 1993, Oslo was the biggest gamble yet, the creation of a mini-fiefdom for their bloodiest enemy. The "Palestinian Authority" was an unlikely bet for a state but, from Arafat's point of view, it would make an ideal launch-point from which to kill Jews in the very heart of their tiny sliver of territory.
Other than that, what's the point? I'm sure the Middle East can always use another squalid corrupt dictatorship, but at the very least it ought to be a viable squalid corrupt dictatorship. An Arafatist squat on the West Bank and Gaza would be insufficient. If Israel is, to the French, a "shitty little country," this would be littler and shittier. Therefore, Arafat would seek to augment it with territory from either west or east, Israel or Jordan. The likelihood is that he'd be able to destabilize Jordan far more quickly than he could destroy Israel. If it's a choice between an Arafat sewer straddling the Jordan River or the Hashemites, I know which I'd prefer.
Israel should take what it needs of the West Bank for a buffer, round up every terrorist it can, and announce that the Jordanians are welcome to what's left. If King Abdullah doesn't want it and chooses to call in the UN blue helmets in perpetuity, so be it. But the last eight years should have taught Israel that it cannot live within its 1967 borders next to a thug statelet whose sole purpose is to liquidate it. The Arabs have succeeded in luring the West into their bizarro alternative universe, where land lost by a foolish king is mysteriously transformed into the personal property of a terrorist organization, where the "armed struggle" of wired schoolgirls is UN-approved, and where the "right to exist" is something to be negotiated. Fantasy land is fun, but we've encouraged the Arabs in their peculiar dementias for too long. It's time to get real.
Once the partition was agreed to, a massive population transfer followed.
Provincial pressures, however immense, should have been resisted by Mountbatten et al.
Many, if not the majority would resist being moved out of the "camps" because whilst they are classified as "refugees" the UN feeds, educates and medicates them for free. Priveleges they would immediately lose upon moving out - and what would they move out to except another slum.
The UN is responsible for perpetuating the problem 3 or 4 generations later and no doubt will continue to do so for the coming generations.
LOL. Right on the nose.
What do you bet the UN tries to snap up Sharon for "war crimes"? I can foresee a scenario in which this set-up gets played out again and again: suicide bombers, Israeli incursions, war crimes accusations, president snatched by the UN, until Israel gets the president that the UN wants it to have: one that will agree to anything, including "right of return." And once that happens, it ends with a whimper, not with a bang. And it won't even make the mainstream news.
I don't know if I agree with this, Europeans were anti-semitic before Hitler and they are extremely anti-semitic now. Oh, they've closed down the crematoriums and whatnot, but now they work through the UN to make Israel as vulnerable as possible.
The Italians were fascists. The Japanese thought their emperor was a deity. The Chinese were a closed society for thousands of years.
People change. Often it takes a generation or two to completely reverse old animosities and doctrine, but they can occur very rapidly.
Perhaps it's indistinguishable. Certainly both elements exist.
But it's not as if Arabs and Jews can't can't get along together in peace. They had for centuries prior to 1947.
It seems to me that if a political settlement were achieved that both sides bought into, it would go a long way toward making things stable. I'm under no illusions that there are Palestinians, and even Europeans, who wish that every Jew on the planet were dead, but that will never end, just like racism among other groups is persistent.
Unfortunately, we are very long way, it seems, from seeing whether I'm correct or not.
1.) I'm not Jewish either, was raised Baptist, turned atheist, and never even knew anyone Jewish till I was 26. So I have no dog in this fight, other than the feeling that the people who hate Jews and the people who hate American capitalists are the same people.
2.) A lot of people distinguish between Judaism and Zionism, and I always wonder: why is it that demanding a home for Palestinians is "social justice" and demanding a home for Jews (far more endangered and persecuted historically) is "Zionism"? I still don't understand that. No one calls Native Americans nasty names for wanting their reservations, why differentiate with this "Zionist" tag?
3.) From what I hear, the Jews and the Arabs did NOT "get along" for thousands of years before 1947. Any Jewish (excuse me, "Zionist") site on the web lists the terrorist attacks launched against Jews starting in about 1922. And my readings of the Koran and my readings of the various websites convince me that Jews were allowed to live in Muslim theocracies only as "dhimmies" who were considered lesser people, did not have full rights as citizens, and had to pay extra taxes. In other words, they got treated like crap and as long as they put up with it, they lived in "peace". This is the same sort of "peace" blacks had in 1930s Alabama. Keep your head down, boy, and say "yassuh" and "nossuh" and you can live in "peace." And oh, by the way, when Hitler starts slaughtering all your relatives, the Mufti of Jerusalem (Arafat's uncle, from what I gather) will go to the SS and ask them to drop a few bombs on his Jewish problem too.
As far as the Zionist label, I'm under the impression that it's one that Jews have adopted for themselves, and rather than being some sort of disparaging label, it's essentially a rallying cry for Jewish nationalism. I don't view it either positively or negatively. It just is. Again, I always welcome informed viewpoints that correct any incorrect perceptions that I may have.
My recollection is much higher. Plus all of their property was never paid for. They landed in Israel with only what they managed to carry and possibly smuggle out. I'm a Christian, but have, for MANY years, been frustrated by the world's reaction to Israel. MORE than enough land has been given to the Arabs. If it were my call and I was Israel, I would throw all them pali bastards out. Then, thumb my nose at everyone. If or when the PEACEFUL ones wanted to return, they could on a case by case basis. (or stay at the outset) I would let all arab nations know the HUGE losses they would EACH face in the event they opened a war. I would also let them know that ALL territory seized in any war given by God's Word in the Bible would NEVER be returned. That is NON-negotiable.
Nam Vet
Nam Vet
We're on the SAME page Bud.
Nam Vet
If you can explain to me why that assumption is true, I will gladly begin advocating your position.
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.