Greetings, netizens!
As I wrote before, I hope you see Love and Licenses on January 6th in NYC. However, I am writing this to discuss something else entirely.
I had a long back-and-forth communique with a progressive J Streeter, and I figured that you would appreciate my arguments, so that you may use my words in the future, should you come across similar such arguments.
It is important to note that there is a large swath of people who fit this category: they believe Israel has a right to exist, but they also believe Israel is a “colonizer” in Judea/Samaria (the “West Bank,” – we cannot cede language), and must go back to 1949 borders. This essay is meant to serve as a handy reference guide when you are faced with such people!
—————–
ARGUMENT ONE: Israel is in violation of UN resolutions by being in Judea/Samaria ILLEGALLY. In order to stop violating “international law,” Israel needs to leave Judea/Samaria.
Here is the bottom line. The UN is made up of the countries that make up the UN, and that consists of a majority of despotic regimes that are antisemitic in nature. See: UN Watch, Eye on the UN.
You claimed that one of the “proofs” that Israel is “illegally occupying” the “settlements” are the numerous UN resolutions against the State of Israel.
I have the simplest answer in response. So what? Do you think I am unaware of the numerous resolutions against Israel, none of which are binding, but all of which simply prove the UN is a made up of antisemitic countries that punish the good guys?
The General Assembly resolutions are little more than suggestions, and are non-binding on an international level. The only binding “international law,” to the extent it even exists, are Security Council Resolutions. And Israel is not in violation of even a single Security Council resolution. The only resolution anyone points to is UN resolution 242, which was drafted by Eugene Rostow, undersecretary of State under Lyndon B. Johnson. And this resolution only calls for Israel to withdraw from “land for peace.” However – it does not call for Israel to withdraw from all land, and it only calls for Israel to withdraw from land in exchange for peace, not jihad.
More information:
Eugene V Rostow, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in 1967 and one of the drafters of the resolution, draws attention to the fact that the text proposed by the British had succeeded ahead of alternatives (in particular, a more explicit text proposed by the Soviet Union):
… paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces ‘from territories occupied in the recent conflict’, and not ‘from the territories occupied in the recent conflict’. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word ‘the’ failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines.
The USSR and the Arabs supported a draft demanding a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines. The US, Canada and most of West Europe and Latin America supported the draft which was eventually approved by the UN Security Council.
Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338… rest on two principles, Israel may administer the territory until its Arab neighbors make peace; and when peace is made, Israel should withdraw to ‘secure and recognized borders’, which need not be the same as the Armistice Demarcation Lines of 1949.
He also points out that attempts to explicitly widen the motion to include “the” or “all” territories were explicitly rejected.
Motions to require the withdrawal of Israel from ‘the’ territories or ‘all the territories’ occupied in the course of the Six Day War were put forward many times with great linguistic ingenuity. They were all defeated both in the General Assembly and in the Security Council.
Source. We thus have established that UN Security Council Resolution 242, which progressives/Islamists claim is the resolution Israel is violating, in fact is not being violated by Israel.
This J Streeter thought that Israel as a nation was legitimate. So I asked him: Why do you believe Israel has even a millimeter of legitimacy as a state? I really would like you to explain this one. Why do you think Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Tsafat are legitimate? Why do you feel these areas are not “stolen” from the “Palestinians”?
Progressives who still believe Israel has any right to exist are often left stammering at this one. Ask them to explain why the 1949 borders of Israel are somehow “legitimate,” yet the land won in a defensive war of 1967 is “illegitimate.” Ultimately, such progressives are being intellectually dishonest if they think Israel via 1949 borders has any legitimacy, and yet also believe Ariel/Shomron/Hebron are “colonies.”
—————————–
ARGUMENT TWO: ISRAEL WILL BE AN “APARTHEID STATE” IN FIVE YEARS AND HAVE THE DREADED “ONE STATE SOLUTION” IF THERE IS NO IMMEDIATE TWO-STATE SOLUTION
I have heard many people, including those in positions of power, claim that Israel will become an “apartheid state” in five years or so if there is no “two state solution,” and that is why a “two state solution” is necessary. This argument is flawed for many numerous reasons:
(1) It is an attempt to scaremonger people into accepting a “two state solution,” and I do not believe scaremongering is an effective or wise way to promote an agenda like that. Let’s say there is no “two state solution” in five years. By that logic, then the public statements of many numerous public officials and Israel advocates I have heard will come back to bite us all. Numerous ‘pundits’ will claim that even staunch ‘Zionists’ acknowledge that Israel is an ‘apartheid state.’
(2) Even saying such arguments result in Arabs saying “Wow, if the ‘two state solution’ is so great for the Jews, then let’s ensure no “two state solution” is possible!” Thus, when Olmert made such statements, it caused greater obstinacy within the “Palestinian” population;
(3) The argument that there will be an “apartheid state” in five years is premised upon the belief that the “Palestinians” in Judea and Samaria will be the numerical majority by that point in time, and as such, a minority will be ruling over them. It is first important to note that the population figures of “Palestinians” have been exaggerated, and it is impossible to ever really know the exact number of Palestinians. Furthermore, Israelis are having more kids than prognosticators predicted, and Palestinians are having less kids. But even assuming the prognosticators are correct, this argument still utterly fails.
This argument is rested upon a central idea that, should the “Palestinians” reach a numerical majority, then they deserve equal rights with Israelis, including equal voting rights and citizenship. This central thesis makes no sense at all. In fact, no political philosopher in the world will tell you that a particular group of people only deserve voting rights once they reach a numerical majority. Good governments, including most famously the USA, exist to protect against tyranny of the majority, and so the reply argument that “voting is futile if the “Palestinians” are not the majority” is also a non-starter. By this argument, “Palestinians” should have “equal rights” and citizenship in Israel today, in 2009.
And thus the real question then is…why do they not have equal voting rights in 2009, and is this justified? Because if it is justified now, then it is ultimately irrelevant whether or not they reach a majority in numbers, due to the above-listed reasons. The answer is quite simple and obvious: “Palestinians” are not citizens of Israel right now because they reject Israel’s very right to exist, and have leaders who have incited and provoked terrorism against Jews since even before the inception of Israel as a state (indeed, their leader, Haj Amin Al-Husseini was an architect of the Holocaust). Moreover, should “Palestinians” be citizens of Israel, it would be a very real security concern for those living in Israel. “Palestinians” reject the very notion of Israel, and they have made it clear that if there would be a ‘Palestine,’ Jews would be second class citizens, if allowed to live there at all. And that is why “Palestinians” are not citizens of Israel. These reasons do not change, whether or not they become the numerical majority.
———————-
ARGUMENT THREE: “SETTLERS” HAVE A PRIVATE ARMY THAT DIVERTS FROM THE REGULAR IDF FORCES
I find this argument somewhat bizarre. No, revenants (my word for “settlers,” because remember, we MUST take back the language) do not have a “private army.” They have IDF soldiers who guard their homes, because if they did not have that, then they would possibly be killed by Hamas/Fatah. I think this is good justification for having the IDF in Judea/Samaria (again, my word for “the West Bank,” because I am taking back the language!)
Now, I do not like the IDF essentially being little more than guard duty, which they are in towns like Hebron, Ariel, and Shomron. However, in Judea/Samaria, they [the IDF] still does go into Ramallah/Jericho/etc and root out the jihadists in their homes, thus acting as more than guard duty. This is what prevents terror attacks, above all else. However, prior to the Oslo “Peace” Accords (I call them the Oslo War Accords), they had far more autonomy to take decisive action against the “Palestinians.” It was Oslo that has tied the IDF’s hands behind its back, sadly.
Regardless, the land the revenants live in is legitimately Israel’s, hundreds of thousands of Israelis live in this land, parts of this land are absolutely necessary from a security perspective (see: the Pentagon document), so that the IDF has absolute control over critical land necessary as a buffer, and moreover, if Israel retreats, it will be seen as victory, and embolden the jihadists. (this was seen in what happened in 2005 after the Gush Katiff evacuation, and in 2000, after the IDF left Lebanon)
I have spoken to combat soldiers, majors, and generals. They all pretty much agree with the above. The J Streeter I mentioned served in the IDF, and claimed this rendered him an expert when compared to me. However, he could not explain how his opinion is more valid than the numerous combat soldiers, majors, and generals I have spoken to (yes general – I heard Moshe “Boogie” Yaalon speak).
———————–
ARGUMENT FOUR: THE IDF COMMITS ATROCITIES MERELY EXISTING IN THE “TERRITORIES”
Any army, by its very nature, does the following: (1) makes mistakes; (2) kills civilians; (3) on occasion goes overboard in force. I am not denying that the IDF has done such a thing, because to not do (1), (2), and (3) would mean the IDF is not an army, but rather is a diplomatic mission. The so-called “catalogue of atrocities” that are cited against the IDF are almost always proven to be blood libels, the most recent being, of course, the Goldstone Report.
The J Streeter went on to say that the checkpoints that existed prior to the disgusting and murderous “Intifada” helped bring about this “Intifada.”
Now, I am aware there were some checkpoints prior to the disgusting “Intifada.” Yet the IDF actually was dismantling checkpoints, and making life easier for the “Palestinians,” including even going on dual patrols with “Palestinians,” prior to the “Intifada.” As a result of this disgusting enterprise, there were naturally security checkpoints that had to increase in number, as well as the security fence.
——————
ARGUMENT FIVE: THE “PALESTINIANS” ARE A PEOPLE AND DESERVE AUTONOMY AND A “STATE”
Firstly, the “Palestinians” have no apparatus to build a state, and no desire for a state. Their “politicians” in charge are terrorists wearing suits (and in the case of Arafat, wearing fatigues), and build a culture of hate and corruption. So there’s that.
But my second point is most important. There has never been a case, in the entire history of the world, of a group of people who attempt genocide (as the “Palestinians” did under their leader, Haj Amin al Husseini, during the Holocaust, and in 1948 when Israel declared independence), lose, and then get the automatic right for a state, despite having attempted genocide! The “Palestinians” are not a people. But even to the extent anyone claims they are, arguendo, it doesn’t matter. They still don’t deserve a state! And it’s not just that Israel is tiny and they have tons of land to look to in the Arab world. It’s that they their actions over the last 100 years shows they have no right to a state. If the “Palestinians” want a state, it’s called Jordan. Or they can stop their hate education, accept the existence of Israel, and then we can talk.
————————
I hope this was a helpful compendium to have at the ready, should any J Streeter or “two-stater,” who appears to be pro-Israel, starts talking with you!
Tags: IDF, Intifada, Israel, J Street, Palestinians, Progressives
