Friday, November 2, 2012

The Growing Irrelevancy of the Jewish Left

Mike L.

{Cross-Posted at Geoffff's Joint, Bar and Grill and Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers.}

The Jewish left is becoming more and more irrelevant in regards the Arab-Israel conflict.

The reason for this is because the Jewish left's prescription for ending the conflict is grounded in the failed idea of a negotiated agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  This, of course, was the basis of the Oslo Accords.  The idea, quite simply, was that the Palestinians want and deserve a state of their own in peace next to Israel and therefore Israel needed to make "painful concessions," such as dividing the city of Jerusalem, in order to get a negotiated end of hostilities.

Throughout the Clinton era there was considerable optimism on the Jewish left that an agreement could be reached because a negotiated conclusion of hostilities in a two-state solution is rational.  For the best benefit of ourselves and our children we will compromise.  For the best benefit of themselves and their children the Palestinians will compromise.  And then there will be something resembling peace.

The only problem, of course, is that the Palestinians, and the Arab world, more generally, has clearly demonstrated that they have no intention of ending the long Arab war against the Jews in the Middle East and why should they?  The Arab-Muslim world has the Jews outnumbered by a factor of 50 or 60 to 1.  They can fight on for many more decades and it will hardly leave a scratch in their broader population.  They can make life exceedingly uncomfortable for the Jews of the Middle East, as the residents of S'derot and Ashkelon know all too well, and the world will support them in their efforts.

This is why the Jewish left no longer has anything helpful to say on the matter.  The left's entire prescription is grounded in the false notion that Israelis are primarily at fault for the conflict and that if only Israel would ethnically cleanse Judea and Samaria of Jews then the Palestinians would finally agree to a state for themselves in peace next to Israel.  But does anyone, at this late date, actually believe that this is what the Palestinians want?  Despite refusing offer after offer after offer for statehood, how can anyone believe that what they want is what they perpetually refuse?

It defies all reason and rationality.

The Jewish left's lone, sole idea on the matter is the two-state solution based on a negotiated settlement.  This idea has proven itself bankrupt, but the Jewish left has absolutely nothing else to offer, yet they refuse to acknowledge the obvious.  Because they cannot admit to themselves that the Palestinians will not accept a negotiated settlement, they continue to hold the rest of us hostage to their hopeful and well-meaning delusions.  They continue to blame the "settlers" (i.e., Jews who live where neither Barack Obama nor Mahmoud Abbas want them to live) for Arab and Palestinian intransigence and brutal anti-Jewish hostility.

The Jewish left can only do this, however, by refusing to face reality.  The Jewish left cannot face the fact that their solution has failed.  Oslo is over.  It's done.  And therefore it is time to move on and start thinking in fresh ways about the conflict.  That's the entire purpose of Israel Thrives.  Rejecting the left does not necessarily mean embracing the right, although it does suggest a willingness to listen to the right.

Speaking strictly for myself, I oppose the right's notion that the thing to do is annex Judea and Samaria because to do so would mean either potentially giving up Israel as a Jewish state or giving Israel up as a democratic state.  Thus the solution that makes the most sense is for Israel to declare its final borders and remove the IDF behind those borders, leaving a substantial portion of what Jordan dubbed "the West Bank" for a Palestinian state.

Let us take matters directly into Jewish hands.

This will not end the conflict, of course, because Arab-Muslim hostility toward Jews is encoded in the DNA of Islam and the very idea of Jewish sovereignty on any land that was at any time part of the Umma is anathema to Arabs.  But it will maintain Israel as both Jewish and democratic.

And that is the best we can hope for, I'm afraid.


  1. Maybe Israel should set borders that will offset the land annexed beyond the green line, then leave it to the UN and Palestinians, with the understanding that Israel will, if necessary, act under Article 51, as is its right.

    As for Leftist Jews that oppose Israel from their Left world view, there is nothing wrong with dreaming of a better place, but it also matters how you get there. Not to mention that most who stand for Israel also dream of a better place, yet understand there are many that have no qualms about using violence to enforce their agenda.

    1. That's reasonable.

      I have no problem with Israel swapping out land in a fair and reasonable manner, although I certainly think that their security considerations should take precedent and it should entirely be up to them.

      I am starting to think of this proposal as a third way between pugnacious conservative maximum demands and weak-kneed left-wing groveling.

      Caroline Glick cannot get everything that she wants, but Gideon Levy and the pussified dkos Jews can just go straight to hell.

      We need a third way and this proposal is perfectly reasonable.

      I wonder why so few are recommending it?

      I say that the Jews of Israel should take matters into their own hands.

  2. Is now the time to try something grand and earth shaking?

    Right now Israel is propping up the PA. It would collapse in the dust without Israel's support.

    Withdraw and leave Fatah to the tender mercies of Hamas?

    It would certainly clarify where everybody stands I guess.

    1. Well, it seems to me that Israel basically has 4 options.

      They can maintain the status quo or annex Judea and Samaria (as the right wants) or they can go groveling to the Palestinians for a negotiated settlement (as the left wants) or they can take matters into their own hands (as I want).

      As for timing, I do not know that tomorrow will be any better than today, but obviously we leave that to them.

      As for Fatah, they are not peace partners, anyway, and should get no veto over Jewish well-being.

  3. Mike I remember a discussion a few years ago at another blog with an (from memory) Asian based Islamist about Israel and Palestine.

    I asked for his frank assessment of a genuine two state solution. His position was quite clear. Israel was an abomination in the eyes of God and it was the duty of all Muslims to fight the state with all means available until it is destroyed no matter how long it takes.

    All of Israel and Palestine is occupied Muslim land. The law of God is very clear on the point. The occupation of Jerusalem in particular offends Islam.

    When I said this really leaves no room except war ... right? ...He immediately agreed. War it is. War it must be. This is what Islam teaches.

    Fresh from another thread teaming with double talking leftists I congratulated him on his honesty. I suggested we should have him stuffed,

    Then he said an odd thing.

    He thanked me for the compliment (which had been genuine) and he said there was nothing personal in this war.

    He understood that as a Zionist I have chosen to fight against Islam and for the expansion of the Zionist empire. He however was fighting for Islam and the war must be to the death. This did not mean I was not an honourable man.

    He likened us to Richard the Lion Hearted and Saracen who extended to each other mutual respect but had to be defeated and driven from Jerusalem.

    Have a nice day.