Wednesday, June 19, 2019

End the conflation

Sar Shalom

In the global conventional wisdom, two concepts are tacitly linked when it comes to discussing Israel, even when they are not explicitly stated. The first concept, which is stated explicitly more often, is that the solution is to have "two states," with some speakers explicitly stating "for two peoples" while others either think that is self-evident as to not require explicit statement or are fine with an Arab state and a binational state. The second concept is that the boundary between those two states should resemble the 1949-Armistice Line.

The conflation of those two concepts is manifest in two ways. The most notable way is that whenever Israel does anything beyond her "proper" boundaries, the international pooh-bahs point to that as ipso facto proof that Israel is not interested in ending her "rule" over the Palestinian people, completely oblivious to the possibility that a bona fide Palestinian state containing substantially less than the entire Jordanian conquest would be acceptable to Israel. The second consequence is that many of those with red lines east of the Armistice Line, such as maintaining some form of Jewish presence in and around Hebron, dismiss the notion of a Palestinian state within any borders.

What is needed is to recognize two facts that suggest mutually antagonizing responses. The first is that between the river and the sea, there are more non-Zionists (when you include Arabs in Areas A and B and in internationally recognized Israel and post-Zionist Jews) than there are Zionists. The second is that the origins of the Jewish people are in Judea. The need to provide some means to provide civil and political rights to the Arabs of Areas A and B separate from Israel's polity does not negate Jewish rights in Hebron or say anything about the Jordan Valley. Similarly, the Jewish right maintain security along the Jordan Valley and settle around Hebron does not imply a right to rule over (yes, I am aware that Israel does not currently rule in Areas A and B, but that can change and Israel's control of movement between sections of Area B reduces the meaningfulness of local rule there) the Arabs of Areas A and B without giving them representation.

32 comments:

  1. I can't comment on your post, Sar, because I don't know what you are talking about. Could you make it a little more plain. For example, "The second consequence is that many of those with red lines east of the Armistice Line...". Who is that? Why not just tell us? It would be so much simpler. You have "two concepts" that "manifest in two ways" and the need to recognize "two facts." It's a little hard to follow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First, I haven't raised this point much since I started here, but Sar by itself is not a name. The name is Sar Shalom.

      Getting to the substance, you raise valid points. As to who has "red lines east of the Armistice Line," I would say that most of us do. What I mean by having a red line is that if a deal requires abandoning some parcel of land beyond the close to the line blocs, that we would categorically refuse the deal. Concretely, rendering Hebron judenrein or withdrawing from the Jordan Valley would be deal breakers for me.

      Currently, I don't have a succinct answer about "two concepts."

      Delete
    2. Thanks for your response.
      Can I address you as Shalom instead? :0)

      Delete
  2. The real problems, in the world generally and in the territories specifically, are oligarchy and nationalism. The dictators in the territories and Gaza are oligarchs. Abbas, with his sons, controls the cigarette trade in the West Bank. He is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Arafat was worth billions. Meshal is worth billions. Their concern is not with the Palestinians, it is with maintaining power and enriching themselves. To do that, they rely on nationalistic fervor. They distract the Palestinians from the real problem, the lack of freedom, not from Israel but from Palestinian leadership, by whipping up antipathy towards Israel. The solution would be to create a democracy in the West Bank and Gaza, which would entail a real free press and real elections. But I don't see anyone really addressing that issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great point Joseph. I never really consider that either despite my knowing about it but like you suggest no one really cares cause Israel is Satan, right?

      Delete
    2. "The solution would be to create a democracy in the West Bank and Gaza, which would entail a real free press and real elections."

      Doing so would create an improvement, but at this point there is no such thing as a solution. One consequence of doing so is that the Palestinians might get leadership that views their misery as a situation to solve rather than as a source of sob stories to justify their ulterior objective (weakening Israel) which if solved would undermine those sob stories.

      Delete
    3. While many "Palestinians," are true to their leaders goals and wishes, we have evidence of dissent among many but basically they can do nothing because their leaders are armed thugs ready to kill them in a New York Second. New elections would be useless and you and I know why. The only candidates would be from the same old crowd. Israel could destroy the old leadership and open up things for the people to choose good leadership but we all know how that would go over in the international community. So.....the average "Palestinian," is stuck with what they got until they develop the cajones to revolt.

      Delete
    4. Yes, for example, Europe is ready to fight Israel to the last drop of Palestinian blood. So are "scholars" at American Universities, and don't forget about actor John Cusack.
      BTW, it would be so easy to find out the solution to most of the world's problems if our leaders and press would only avail themselves of the expertise about history and world affairs which exist in such great abundance in acting schools.

      Delete
    5. Sar Shalom,

      The ulterior objective of the Palestinian leadership has nothing to do with Israel. The objective is to retain power and wealth. If having the entire population convert to Judaism would increase their power and wealth, conversion it would be.

      Delete
  3. Congratulations Sar Shalom. E of Z has re-posted your post.

    http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2019/06/0620-links-pt1-col-kemp-west-must-call.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The Palestinians' refusal to attend a U.S.-sponsored "economic workshop" in Bahrain has been widely treated as a reasonable response to the unlikelihood that President Trump's peace plan will satisfy their demands. But in fact, it's merely further proof that the Palestinian leadership doesn't actually want a state - or at least not a viable one - because even if Palestinian statehood isn't imminent, economic development now would increase the viability of any future state."

    https://www.jns.org/opinion/once-again-the-pa-shows-it-doesnt-care-about-having-a-viable-state/

    No one who pays attention really believes the "Palestinians," want peace or a state of their own along side Israel.

    Here's an actual educated Arab opining:

    "In his April 15, 2019 column in Jordan's Al-Ghad daily, titled "The Illusions of Peace with Israel," senior Jordanian journalist Fahd Al-Khitan wrote that the complicated conflict with Israel cannot be resolved even as part of a global deal. He explained that, despite the U.S. administrations' considerable efforts to advance its "Deal of the Century," and despite the peace agreements Israel has signed with Jordan and Egypt and its rapprochement with other Arab governments, the Arab peoples themselves hate Israel, regard it as an illegitimate alien corn in the region and oppose any plan for peace with it. Al-Khitan therefore assessed that the present generation will not see a final settlement of the conflict with Israel, adding that those who believe otherwise, chief of them U.S. President Donald Trump, are deluding themselves.....Israel has signed peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, yet the peoples of those two countries are Israel's biggest haters, as Western opinion polls show."

    https://www.memri.org/reports/senior-jordanian-journalist-conflict-israel-irresolvable-deal-century-will-fail-because-arab


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those peoples hate the Jews, and they are encouraged to hate the Jews. And, as Pat Condell once pointed out, they don't hate the Jews because of Israel, they hate Israel because of Jews.
      Mahmoud Abbas says that the Deal O' the Century represents the end of the Palestinian Cause. From that statement, it's not hard to discern what the so-called Palestinian cause really is: the eradication of Israel and its replacement with a 23rd Arab state (maybe), but mostly the destruction of Israel and Jewish self-determination. Why does the world pretend it is anything else?

      Delete
  5. Mr. Steven Emerson said:

    “BDS — which seeks to isolate Israel economically
    and culturally — is considered anti-Semitic because
    it singles out the world’s only Jewish state and
    ignores countries with far worse human rights records.”

    SOURCE: CAIR Anti-Semites Fight
    ‘Anti-Semitism Awareness’ Bill

    www.algemeiner.com/2019/04/08/cair-antisemites-fight-anti-semitism-awareness-bill/

    ===================================
    Mr. Eitan Fischberger (from camera dot org) said:

    …the word “apartheid” has become associated
    with Israel, despite Israeli Arabs, Druze
    and Ethiopians serving in the highest
    echelons of the Israeli government,
    parliament and judiciary.

    Sure, racism and discrimination are
    endemic to every society, and always
    will be, but labeling Israel an
    apartheid state is woefully inaccurate.

    Then there is the oft-heard contention
    that Israel is committing a Palestinian
    “genocide,” even though the Palestinian
    population in Judea, Samaria and the
    Gaza Strip continues to grow at a rapid pace.

    …..

    A prime example of this trend is the redefinition
    of the word “refugee,” whereby every refugee in
    the world sheds this status once they resettle
    in another country, and their descendants
    do not receive refugee status either.

    Only Palestinians are considered refugees
    even after resettling, and their descendants
    inherit this status indefinitely.

    SOURCE: Postmodernism and Israel:
    Fluidity of words has real-world implications

    by Eitan Fischberger, 2019 June 21
    www.jns.org/opinion/postmodernism-and-israel-fluidity-of-words-has-real-world-implications/

    ===================================
    Who are the Palestinians?

    www.jns.org/opinion/the-invention-of-palestinians/

    www.algemeiner.com/2019/02/14/the-invention-of-palestinians/

    https://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/2018/06/who-are-palestinians.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mordechai Nisan [author of
    The Crack-Up of the Israeli Left] said:


    “It is good business to be a Leftist.

    You get funded from foreign anti-Semites,
    you get to travel around the world,
    speak on distinguished panels,
    enjoy extensive media coverage,
    and receive praise from a variety of prominent
    people and noteworthy organizations. Fame,
    though short-lived, is an attractive commodity,
    though tarnished by infamy forever.”

    SOURCE: How the Israeli Left Lost It
    by Edward Alexander, 2019 June 23
    www.algemeiner.com/2019/06/23/how-the-israeli-left-lost-it/

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jonathan S. Tobin said:

    “Like most of the rest of the Democrats,
    [Pete] Buttigieg [mayor of South Bend]
    seems to see Israel’s legitimacy as linked to
    the creation of a Palestinian state alongside it.”

    ....

    “At its core, the Democrats’ conception of the
    U.S.-Israel relationship is that of a great power
    and a client state that must do as it’s told.”

    SOURCE: Trump discarded the
    carrot-and-stick approach to Israel

    by Jonathan S. Tobin, 2019 June 20
    www.jns.org/opinion/trump-discarded-the-carrot-and-stick-approach-to-israel/

    ===================================

    Jonathan S. Tobin said:

    When The New York Times decided
    to give the Democratic presidential
    candidates a chance to answer 18
    policy questions in a video essay,
    the only one that touched on
    the Middle East went as follows:

    “Do you think Israel meets international
    standards of human rights?”

    That question summed up the anti-Israel
    bias of the so-called newspaper of record
    as well as anything it has ever published.

    Considering the scores of nations with
    egregious human-rights records and
    the presence in Israel’s immediate
    proximity to many of them, it speaks
    volumes about the obsessive nature
    of the paper’s prejudice that the
    only query it would ask about was
    the one country in the region that is
    a democracy and respects human rights.

    SOURCE: Trump discarded the
    carrot-and-stick approach to Israel

    by Jonathan S. Tobin, 2019 June 20
    www.jns.org/opinion/trump-discarded-the-carrot-and-stick-approach-to-israel/

    ReplyDelete
  8. I gotta bookmark this website it seems extremely helpful very useful. Thanks for sharing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Clipping, are there any specific topics
    you want or need? I aim to please!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Tomorrow is the economic meeting in Bahrain which will allow "Palestinians," to once again "miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." lol

    Those of us paying attention (woke in another dimension,) know that "Palestinians," will never, and never intend to, make peace with Israel. Doing so would dry up all the $$$$$ the leaders use to line their pockets and force them to do something they are not capable of.....governing a State.

    I applaud Trump et al but even though they "get it," more so than any American admin so far, they still don't "get it."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's right, you're not going to buy off the Nazis, the Klan nor those who scream Allah while committing their latest atrocity. They're in it for the hate and supremacist fantasies.

      Delete
    2. My take is that while there are some religious nutcases, maybe even a lot of them in "Palestine," most people would rather just have a good peaceful life but dare not say it or do anything about it because hating/killing Jews is big money and a valid career choice in that neck of the woods. Course I could easily be wrong and most are genocidal Jew haters. Who really knows.

      Delete
  11. AOC is up to a little conflating of her own, claiming that an invitation from a holocaust remembrance group to visit Auschwitz with a survivor is tantamount to a right wing plot for what the congresswoman and politician refers to as "for political gain."
    Sure, she's a half wit, but she's not afraid to say stupid things stupidly, sophomorically, and loud enough for everyone to hear in a high-pitched, rather shrill and annoying voice indicating a strong possibility of a substantial admixture of helium to the rarified air she breathes. Reminds me of my college days on Sproul Plaza - not that happy a memory.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's really too bad AOC is on the dark side of things. She would have made a good Jedi for good stuff, alas.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Only five percent of Palestinian respondents — the lowest number in all the countries surveyed — regarded homosexuality as “acceptable.”

    https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/06/24/hatred-of-israel-homosexuality-and-womens-emancipation-are-dominant-beliefs-in-arab-world-new-bbc-poll-reveals/

    Man I am LMAO at gays and feminists who support freaking Palestinian haters. What a bunch of idiotic self hating morons you are.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 1. AOC didn't go because Steven King has a tendency to meet with neo-nazis. I don't blame her.
    2. Her comments about concentration camps have been endorsed by historians. My go to guy for this is Yaacov Lozowick who says that Yad Vashem is being overly purist in their criticism of AOC. Call the camps internment camps and the result is the same,they are a disgusting blot on America. Just check out Lozowick's twitter account.
    3. AOC is not Ilhan Omar or Tlaib, https://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Ocasio-Cortez-isnt-Omar-or-Talib-especially-on-Israel-and-antisemitism-583509

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The blot is as much on those that profess to care yet refuse to give the money to improve conditions. Like the Palestinian refugees that must languish in refugee camps for spite.

      You don't talk about concentration camps in this day and age unwittingly. Just because Lozowick professes doesn't make it so. Unless, perhaps, one wants to justify the remarks and enable the bigotry.

      Pretend that she is different if you must. She will show herself in the end. She is ignorant about much and has authoritarian tendencies. That she's not blatant like the others is nothing to celebrate.

      That she apparently has a spell over Pelosi makes one wonder. Until Warren calls for reparations for gays. Maybe Israel will come up in the debates. It will be interesting to hear the love.

      Delete
    2. 1. She was invited to visit Auschwitz with a 93 year old survivor by a holocaust remembrance group, not Steve King. Steve King was NOT invited. Steve King wouldn't be going.

      2. If she went she would be availing herself of a chance to actually learn something profound, so forget it already.

      3. Her response to Steve King's goading was, of course, obnoxious in its own right, and a diversionary tactic, or it just wouldn't be AOC. She and her fans are not really into Holocaust education but rather the subversion of language and history to grab power. Again, she comes off like a sophomoric radical. Her constant appeals to some plausible deniability are always as some retort from the playground during recess. Childish.

      4. One would be hard pressed to find the mention of concentration camps which is not used to conjure up images of WWII and Nazis. Add in AOC's mention of "never again," and one really needs to wonder what drug has been ingested by Joseph and fellow SJW's to want to twist themselves into pretzels defending this adolescent, this Our Little Socialist Jr. Miss.

      5. Since Joseph wants to use appeals to authority here as a tactic, liberal civil libertarian, noted author, Constitutional expert, Harvard Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz calls her statements a form of Holocaust denial. And he's correct - factually.

      6. When one takes a harder look at AOC and her BFF's Tlaib, Omar, Corbyn, and some of their online friends and political alliances, one finds an undeniable connection to the straight out right wing antisemitism they all pretend to decry, again leaving Joseph and his merry band of "democratic" socialists playing the part of useful tools.

      Delete
    3. My go to guys are actual concentration camp survivors:

      "The two Holocaust survivors, Sami Steigmann and David Tuck, sat for an interview with Turning Point USA and said AOC's comments were ignorant and full of hubris.

      "AOC -- look at me. My name is Sami Steigmann. I am a holocaust survivor. I went through it. How can you -- looking at my face, telling me that the camps we have in the South are concentration camps? What you are doing is you are insulting every victim of the Holocaust. Shame on you!" Steigmann said.

      "I'm not only a Holocaust survivor, I was in a labor camp ... I was subjected to medical experiments and, later on, a German woman saved my life, when I came to the stage of dying of starvation."

      Tuck, who has been through four concentration camps, said AOC's comments were purely political and don't reflect reality.

      "My name is David Tuck. I'm a holocaust survivor. I was in four concentration camps. We have no concentration camps [in America]," he said.

      "This is just a political comment. She's in politics. She's looking out for herself. There must be a purpose, a reason. Why would she say it? She wants to be popular? You can't be popular by annihilating other people. Don't talk to me about concentration camps," he continued.

      Tuck went on to describe his experience in the camps, including the infamous Auschwitz camp in Poland and called America the greatest country in the world.

      "The first camp was Posen Stadium. And then I went to Auschwitz. Then I went to Mauthausen, then I went to Gusen," he said. "Out of every 10 Jews, nine were killed. I was lucky. I still have the number on my arm. Nobody can deny that the Holocaust ever happened to me."

      "I'd wake up in the morning and I'd say 'Please God, let me see the light the next day," Tuck added. "When I heard that we are free and I looked up in the sky and I said, 'tell me, where can I go?' And I came to America ... It's still the best country in the world. Enjoy life. We have no concentration camps here. God bless you all."

      https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-holocaust-survivors-respond-to-aocs-concentration-camp-comments

      Thr fact AOC used the term "never again," proves she had Nazi death camps in mind when she made the remark. The fact she won't roll it back is interesting and sad. She was wrong but can't/won't admit it.

      Delete
  15. Apparently you don't know who Yaacov Lozowick is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. You assume incorrectly. Despite the name dropping, he is no more expert on this matter than anyone else. What gives him any more insight compared to those who believe AOC engages in and enables antisemitism with her Holocaust denial? Perhaps others actually know the mentality of AOC and her friends better. Maybe you should ask yourself why you are defending the antisemitism and trivialization of what actually occurred to the Jewish people.

      Delete