If Only the Left Would Abandon Israel

May 27, 2012

(Ted Belman) Shaul Magid, professor of Jewish Studies at Indiana U, asks, “What if the Left Abandonned Israel?” and suggests that Israel would go to hell in a handbasket.  “Be careful what you wish for,” he warns.

For him, the left are “basically liberal-minded and believers in civil rights and the rights of the oppressed — at least in the abstract.”  He suggests that the “messianics and revisionists” of the right, on the other hand, aren’t.  Everyone believes in civil rights in the abstract.  It’s when you deal with reality other considerations and values come into place.

I also believe in the “rights of the oppressed,” but I differ with the left in that I see the Jews in Israel as the oppressed ones, not the Palestinians (at least, the Palestinians are not oppressed by the Jews).
We Israelis are oppressed by everyone, including the U.N., the State Department, the EU, and the Muslims, including the Palestinians.  We are oppressed by 60,000-plus rockets aimed at us by our immediate neighbors and by threats of annihilation.  And for what?  It’s either because we exist, which the left and the Arabs think is a crime, or because we are “occupiers,” which much of the world finds unconscionable.  They forget that UNSC Res. 242 authorized Israel to remain in occupation until she had recognized and secure borders.  They argue that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies, even though Israel is not occupying the land of another signatory to the treaty as provided therein.
But even if the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply, Israel’s primarily obligation is to treat the people occupied humanely.  In this regard, 95% of the Palestinians are totally governed by the Palestinian Authority.  Nowhere in the treaty does it say that the occupier must end the occupation.  In any event, the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is fully set out in the Oslo Accords or 1995.  There is no suggestion in it that Israel must end the occupation without a negotiated agreement.  So spare me the crocodile tears about the “occupation.”
The condemnation of Israel is based on the belief that the disputed territories are Palestinian.  How so?  They have never exercised sovereignty over said lands
The Arabs rejected the Partition Plan in 1948 that would have led to their sovereignty and invaded Israel instead.  For the next nineteen years the West Bank was under Jordanian control, and no one ever called for a Palestinian state.  In 1967, the Arabs were utterly defeated in a war they began.  As a result, the UNSC passed Res. 242, which does not require Israel to withdraw from all the territories. At the Khartoum Conference, the Arabs rejected Res. 242 and agreed on the three nos: no recognition, no negotiations, and no peace.  Arafat accepted Res. 242 because such acceptance was a precondition to entering the Oslo Accords, but he never agreed to its terms.  And now they reject negotiations.
Israel, on the other hand, can claim sovereignty over these lands, pursuant to the San Remo Resolution of 1919 and the Palestine Mandate of 1922 which granted the Jews  the right to reconstitute their homeland in Palestine and the right to close settlement of the land.  She can also claim sovereignty over these lands by virtue of a continuous presence in the land for 3,000 years, by virtue of 1,000 years of sovereignty, by virtue of acquiring the land in a defensive war, or by insisting that only the Jordan River would constitute secure borders.
Magid quotes Zachary Braiterman with approval:

I used to think that American Jews had the right and obligation to stake ideological claims in Israeli politics. I was wrong. I don’t have anything to say. Legalize outposts? Go ahead. Beat the hell out of Hamas or Hezbullah? I won’t object. Hit the Iranians? I hope you all know what you’re doing, because the mess is yours if you make it, and there is not a lot that the American Jewish community will be (able) to do if things go south. Desecrate mosques, uproot olive trees, beat up a Danish demonstrator, pass racist legislation, muzzle criticism, harass people at the airport?

Each one of these complaints shows a profound ignorance of the law or the context. Each one can be rebutted to the satisfaction of a fair minded person.

Historically, the Zionism of Braiterman was the norm. Even given the less-than-charitable things Ben-Gurion had to say about the Arabs and the ways in which Israel treated its Arab population during times of conflict, the Zionist mainstream was committed to a humanistic and liberal ethos, even as it failed in significant ways.

This is true, but why did it fail?  Because the Arabs would have none of it.  And that’s the point: why it is no longer the norm.  The Jewish left prefer to ignore the reality.  The Arabs are dedicated to destroying the Jewish state, in phases if necessary.  The charters of both Hamas and Fatah say so.  Sharia says so.  The incessant preaching of hatred says so.  The support for terrorism says so.  The unwillingness to compromise their maximalist demands says so.  Yet the left blame Israel for the lack of peace.

Megid complains:

The unspoken merger of the messianic and neo-revisionist right, coupled with the politicization of the haredi has given rise to an increasingly uncompromising ethnocentrism and, arguably, a redefined Zionism.

True enough.  But by characterizing the new Zionism as “ethnocentric,” Megid is opening up a can of worms.  He is embracing the canard that Zionism is racism.  He is arguing against the Jewish particular in favor of universalism or multiculturalism.  Those values might be appropriate for America, though I prefer the melting pot to multiculturalism.  In fact, so do most Americans and Europeans.  Multiculturalism has proven a failure, and its bitter fruits have yet to be realized in full.
Megid regrets that Israel was not able to “attain a balance necessary for its rightful place as a society among the nations of the free world.”  But why must Israel be like everyone else?  Why can’t it remain a pumpernickel in a store of white bread?  Besides, Israel is in the Middle East, which is not part of the free world.  The Arabs are barring Jews and Christians from Arab countries.  In Egypt and Nigeria and elsewhere, they are killing Christians and burning churches.  No multiculturalism for them.  No universalism for them, except when Islam dominates the world.
While the Jewish left embraces the Muslim Brotherhood at home and abroad — and, I believe to America’s detriment — Israel prefers to keep her distance from the forces which are bent on destroying her.  In order to defend herself, she must embrace her ethnicity, not eschew it.
I accept that many Jews who embraced the Zionism of their youth “understand quite well and are deeply informed — not only about the political realities but about the underlying history of the conflict.”  But so are the Jews who embrace the new Zionism.  The difference being that the former want Israel to be a state of all its citizens rather than a Jewish state.
The latter apparently is too Jewish for them.
In the end, it’s not about old and new Zionism, but rather about survival.  The left wants Israel to give in to the demands of the Arabs and the international community in order to survive, though history does not support this belief.  The right believes that doing so would lead to Israel’s destruction.  The right prefers peace through strength.

Anyone left in the left who isn’t dealing with these issues is in denial.


UN Security Council deadlocked on Palestinian bid

November 8, 2011
UNITED NATIONS (AFP)(EYE) — The UN Security Council is deadlocked on whether to accept or reject Palestine as a member of the United Nations, according to a draft report of a key committee obtained Tuesday.
“The committee was unable to make a unanimous recommendation to the Security Council,” said the report by the committee on admitting new UN members, adding to the troubles faced by the Palestinian application made by president Mahmud Abbas on September 23.(More…)

it should not be as close as it is


Funding the enemy

September 20, 2011

Like quiting smoking. You know it is bad for you, but you can’t stop spending money on it There is a lot of social pressure to keep your former lethal habit going and you may not survive kicking the vice. I have a lot of empathy. I’d like to go to Israel, but I’m afraid I’m not ready… and I’m not sure Israel is ready to protect me either… or if I could protect myself from some of the leftist Israelis that I met in NYC or online.Sorry to make this personal.

PA militias.jpg (Caroline Glick) Cong. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is a true friend of Israel. Her bill calling for a cutoff of US aid to the PA and a massive decrease of US aid to the UN in the event the UN upgrades the Palestinians’ diplomatic status is one of the most important pieces of pro-Israel legislation to be introduced in the US Congress in a generation. By announcing it opposes an aid cutoff, Israel undermined Ros-Lehtinen’s position. It betrayed its good friend. No doubt Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman were under great pressure from the IDF and from the Obama administration to call for continued international funding of the PA. But the public didn’t elect them with the expectation that they would abandon Israel’s national interest and harm its friends just because they feel the heat. (MORE)

Holy Land clerics bless Palestinian UN bid

September 19, 2011

(AFP/Brietbart) Priests in the Holy Land [That is what the Catholic Church calls Israel] used their sermons on Sunday to give their blessing to the Palestinians’ [That is what the Catholic Church calls non Jews in Israel]bid for United Nations membership. The retired Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Michel Sabbah, the first Palestinian to hold the post since the Crusades, was to preach in the Roman Catholic church in the northern West Bank city of Nablus. A joint statement by Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran priests pledged their “support for the diplomatic efforts being deployed to win international recognition for the State of Palestine… on the June 1967 borders with Jerusalem as our capital.” The priests went further than their bishops, who in a statement this week confined themselves to a call for intensified prayer and diplomatic efforts ahead of the Palestinian membership request, to be sent to the UN Security Council on Friday. “Palestinians and Israelis should exercise restraint, whatever the outcome of the vote at the United Nations,” the bishops said. “We call upon decision-makers and people of good will to do their utmost to achieve the long-awaited justice, peace and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.” Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu look set for a UN showdown next week, with Abbas planning to push for membership for a Palestinian state and Netanyahu arguing against it. “Despite the pressures that we face, Palestine goes to the UN on the 23rd of this month to seek admission as a full member,” Abbas told Egyptian television on Wednesday.

And that is what they call REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY! It is inherent to the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran church. The Pope can not be trusted until he renounces this creed. The pope will never renounce this. Anything nice the Pope says about Jews is merely public relations.


Palestinians to Obama: This Is All Your Fault

September 19, 2011

The thing is… it is Obama’s fault for not realizing Abu Mazen AKA Abbas would twist his words. I wonder if Obama will start to realize what he is dealing with? An ego like Obama could very well do an about face with this kind of shenanigan. What is worse is the Palestinians aren’t even taking Obama seriously. I almost feel bad for Obama and I suspect that Obama could surprise all of us and really get rough on the Palestinians. Don’t mess with the OBAMA!


(Eye on the World according to the Jerusalem Post)

Zakariya al-Agha, the PLO’s top representative in the Gaza Strip… said that the PA was going to the UN because US President Barack Obama, in his last speech to the UN in 2010, talked about the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state within one year.

The Palestinian Authority laid further blame on Obama by citing a last minute offer from the Obama administration to renew negotiations. Palestinian leader Nabil Shaath claims to have been so insulted by the offer that they made the final decision to go to the U.N. then and there.

what was it that Obama said?

two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, as part of a comprehensive peace between Israel and all of its neighbors.”

The denied Correlative: Two States in Obama’s mind should be negotiated and should not be forced unilaterally. There should not be a Palestine at all, but to act like as if Obama demanded a state without negotiations is a lie.


Palestinian Authority Threatens US Over Security Council Veto then KISSES E.U. ASS.

September 18, 2011

It does not seem like all the ass kissing by Obama and Clinton is paying off. They are getting poo pooed by the Arabs and the E.U. is getting all the respect. I almost feel bad for the Obama administration, but then they made their own bed and Obama was warned by many.

From this source (h/t Infidel Bloggers Alliance):

Palestinian Authority officials on Saturday threatened the United States saying vetoing its statehood bid in the United Nations Security Council next week would “destroy” the so-called two-state solution.
The warning came hours after PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas announced in a speech in Ramallah that he would ask the UN Security Council to accept membership of a PA state despite a firm US warning the move would fail.
Chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat warned a US veto would not only destroy the two-state solution, but could lead to the dismantling of the PA.
“Anyone who supports the two-state solution should back the Palestinian effort [at the UN],” he said.
Erekat hinted that if the PLO dismantles the PA, it would subsequently insisting on the ‘right of return’ for millions of ‘Palestinian refugees’ to Israel.
[…]
US lawmakers in Congress, over State Department objections, have overwhelmingly called on the Obama administration to cut funding to the PA should it present its bid to the world body.

So, what will Obama do now?

Obama won’t get re-elected for sure if he supports Palestine. All the chips are on the table. My bet is that the Palestinians will go with the statehood bid, the Israelis will then end the Oslo agreements and annex Judea and Samaria and the Arab countries just recuperating from the Arab Spring will not have the ability to do anything about it. Turkey will huff and puff and then go backrupt

(EYE ON WORLD🙂 BERLIN (YNET) – Palestinian Authority envoy in Germany Saleh Abdel-Shafi claimed Sunday that the Palestinians will drop their bid to achieve full UN membership in exchange for European Union recognition of the PA as a UN observer state at the General Assembly.
“We are still negotiating with the Europeans,” Abdel-Shafi told the Financial Times Deutschland. “We’ll be willing to forgo the Security Council bid if European states support us at the Assembly vote,” he said.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has also expressed willingness to drop the Security Council bid in his Friday address but posed different conditions – Abbas demanded that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recognize the 1967 borders and freeze settlement construction.(More)

The Israelis have nothing to gain by stopping house building. The left is complaining they have no place to live and are pitching tents all over Tel Aviv with European cheering in the media. I have no doubt the E.U. (considering their HITLEResque history) will continue to cater to the Palestinians,,, especially since most have now rejected Durban III and feel they are wearing their Zionist hats again. Those Euros don’t mind throwing the Jews to the ovens as long as they can do it in a way that doesn’t hurt their fragile egos.


UN Security Council to discuss Palestinian Statehood on July 26: If the Palestinians #Israel #TCOT #P2

July 7, 2011

If the United States or any other permanent council member used its veto, the General Assembly would not be able to vote on membership for Palestine. The UN Security Council plans to discuss in July the possibility of Palestine becoming a United Nations member state, the Security Council president said on Tuesday. Any recommendation for admission must receive the affirmative votes of 9 of the 15 members of the Council, provided that none of its five permanent members — China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America — have voted against the application. ...The Quartet of Middle East peace negotiators – the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations – are expected to meet on July 11. The meeting, expected to take place in Washington, will come amid a US push to revive peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. UN Security Council to discuss Palestinian Statehood on July 26 h/t Challah …