Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
No Jews Speech
The US State Department condemned this speech. The message from State was that “it is wrong to say we support ethnic cleansing when what we really want is just to see all of the Jews eliminated from the region . . . one way or another.”**
** May not be an exact quote, but it expresses the same sentiment.
Published in General
All: There is no way Zafar will budge. Nor will Israel’s defenders.
How about we try a different approach: forget about all the history. By itself, it just leads to blood-feud types of arguments. We cannot do anything about the past anyway. The real question ought to be much, much simpler:
What should the nations and peoples of the Middle East do now?
In this light, things are much more straightforward. Human rights should be maximized. Oppressive regimes and worldviews should be combated. Property rights and every other form of economic liberty and civil justice should be pursued.
Seen in this light, no country in the world can rest on its laurels. But if we apply the above principles to the Middle East, you end up with something much closer to Richard Harvester’s conceptions of Cities of Refuge. These should be installed, defended and promoted by the US and Israel and all nations who want to see solutions instead of endless complaints.
Is the rest of Israel supposed to be considered to be “occupied” because 2 million Arabs are living in Israel ‘proper?’ I don’t think so. So if the West Bank ever got it’s own sovereignty, it wouldn’t be considered ‘occupied’ if Jewish-though-formerly-Israeli citizens were permitted legally to live there as citizens. And whether any aspects of the Israeli military were stationed there could be totally with the agreement of legitimate Palestinian governing bodies. And this might be seen as a transitional situation, or it might be a somewhat permanent situation in support of mutual self defense.
How is that no Jews policy working out in Gaza?
The land in and around Israel is one of the most conquered areas in the world (see @ontheleftcoast ‘s post #71) – largely because it provided trade routes between Egypt and the Anatolian and Mesopotamian empires. The city of Jerusalem was itself conquered or sacked over 60 times.
The British wrested Israel from Turkey during WWI, and they chose to turn over their conquest to the Jews, with approval from the UN. Israel has proven itself a sovereign nation by force of arms several times since. Why do these conquests not matter? Why should anyone honor claims by previous, and now defeated, conquerors?
God, I love that man.
Why can’t America have a Bibi?
Religion is irrelevant. If they excuse or celebrate child murderers and suicide bombers, they too are part of the culture of evil.
If Netanyahu demanded an Arab-free Israel, I suspect we’d be hearing a lot more about that.
I think of it as a demonic suicide-worshipping death cult.
The fact that Zafar even asked that question suggests that he’s just blowing smoke. The Christians are not dedicated to “the obliteration or dissolution of Israel” as are the Palestinian Muslims.
But Palestinian Christians are still refugees. Israel won’t let Palestinian Christians return and reclaim their property.
If the conflict is really about hatred and not the theft of land, why is that? You explain.
All the settlements, including those in East Jersalem, are illegal under international law. All of them.
And removing Arabs from land in order to create settlements where Arabs aren’t allowed to live is definitely ethnic cleansing. What’s unclear about this?
Zafar, there is no such thing as international law, except for commercial utilitarian laws like those governing shipping, cargo and the like. The UN is neither the arbiter nor the creator of international laws. As a collection of mostly undemocratic countries, how could a good person give it such authority?
Each country has its own laws – but unfree nations merely resort to “might makes right.” That is “law” across almost all of the Arab world. Israel is a paragon of “equality under the law” compared to all of its neighbors.
International law, people! This is so important that even the international community got involved — and they are completely trustworthy arbiters. So, I think this says it all. We have to give up supporting Israel. That’s all there is to it.
International law — Wow!
Again, the Israelis own Israel by right of conquest. They owe the Palestinians nothing.
@Iwe you made a nice try, but seemed to be a voice crying in the wilderness.
When I first saw this post and listened to Netanyahu, I thought I’d go back and look at population figures from 1947 to now for the West Bank. I give up, found numbers from 600 to 600,000. Haven’t found any sources yet that couldn’t be accused of blatant bias.
From the comments so far, that seems to be the universal picture – no trustworthy historical sources that don’t have an axe to grind. Which makes me think that the post of @iwe suggesting we start from here is about as good as it gets.
Refreshingly direct, and with the added virtue of being a coherent and honestly expressed opinion. Hats off to you, Sir!
Predictably I’m not 100% in agreement – what with the Geneva Conventions about the rights of civilian populations that Israel signed – but that is by the by.
I think Israel would get further with peace if it out and out just stated this and went from there. ??
The Jews didn’t steal Israel from anybody. The Romans didn’t sweep all the Jews out. There has been a continuous presence of Jews in Israel for 4,000 years.
http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/09/11/we-never-left-the-jews-continuous-presence-in-the-land-of-israel/
I was going to be good…
Not crying. From a position of strength, crying is not necessary.
Israel has the land. Its moral conscience is its own responsibility; Jews do not delegate responsibility for our decisions to others, and certainly not a UN that is comprised primarily of people who are not chosen by their own people.
I agree entirely! I have often said that the reason there is no peace between Israel and its neighbors is because Israel refuses to act as a victor historically always has done.
Actually Israel does seem to act pretty much that way, it just doesn’t admit it.
Do you think that’s a good thing? I can see the pros and cons of it.
Of course Israel does not. If it acted like Germans and French did in Alsace-Lorraine, or Pakistan and India after partition, or the Arab nations in 1948, then there would be few or no Arabs in Israel, and the “disputed” territories would be annexed. Most importantly, there would be no Muslim presence on the Temple Mount, and the Third Temple might even be rebuilt by now.
No proper victor immediately hands its most important place to its enemies, so they can desecrate it, and throw stones down on Jews below, and refuse any entry to Jews to worship.
When you win the war, you get to pray where you want to. Almost 50 years after Israel conquered Jerusalem in a defensive war, Jews are still not allowed to pray on the Temple Mount.
Arabs will fight until they have to admit they have lost. Israel has prolonged the war by refusing to win it outright.
Perhaps more like the French in Algeria or the Apartheid regime in South Africa.
(And 15% of India’s population is Muslim, just saying.)
Wrt annexing the disputed territories – why bother when you just establish Arab free settlements on more and more of them anyway? What’s the benefit of annexing them when you can basically use them as you please without doing so?
Perhaps it’s a matter of judging gaining control of territory more important than making a definitive statement about Jerusalem. Or the noise about Jerusalem is a good distraction from creeping de facto annexation.
They just need to act like Arabs, who ejected Jews and Christians from their countries and apologized to no one. In fact, the left in the United States apologized to them!
Naturally, the Jews won’t act like the Arabs because their religion forbids it. Arabs, of course, practice apartheid because their religion requires it.
So, India is like Israel — good analogy, Zafar. And Pakistan is like the Arab states and the Palestinians. Well, how many Hindus and Sikhs felt safe staying in Pakistan?
Yes, apartheid is much closer to Sharia and the Muslim countries, where the Muslims are on top of the system and the Dhimmis and Kafirs are on the bottom.
I think India is more like Israel in a lot of ways, and Pakistan like the Arab countries in those same ways – but the equivalent to the Palestinians are the Kashmiris, which is where the analogy fits less well.
What is Dhimmitude if not apartheid by another name? What’s so bizarre is that Muslims around the world are killing people of other sects and other religions, homosexuals, and women for reasons of “honor” while you’re complaining that Israelis are building settlements in their own country.
I see you are cherry picking. Pakistan is the safe comparison — intolerance and killing and terrorism all associated with the Muslims there. And destabilizing India and Kashmir and everywhere else they can — I notice they didn’t want East Pakistan breaking off either.
Criticising Islam and Muslims (very legitimately) isn’t a cogent defense of Israeli actions.
As usual you ignore the fact that there are lots of Palestinian Christians who are dispossessed by Israel. That’s a pretty big indication that the issue is not a conflict over religion (Judaeo-Christianity vs Islam) but about land. Which brings us to:
I know you keep saying the West Bank is Israel’s, but that’s not accepted by most of the world, or by the Palestinians who remain a majority there. Even the Israeli a government doesn’t say that. Iow, it’s wishful thinking – so far.