Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas wrote an article in the New York Times called, "The Long Overdue Palestinian State." It's about what you'd expect. There's an excellent rewrite at Elder of Ziyon that makes it into something more truthful. One of the stupidest U.S. foreign policy positions is our support for the so-called "two state solution." It is difficult to think of any people that deserve a state less than the Palestinians. What have Palestinians ever done that makes supporting their statehood a good idea? Is a legacy of international terrorism, virulent anti-Semitism, celebration of murders and murderers, endemic violence, corruption, repression, irrational demands and complete intransigence when it comes to peace negotiations a good recipe for statehood? How about rule by murderous factions that are distinguished only by one being more openly murderous and anti-Semitic than the other?
A Palestinian state is not and has never been in the interests of the United States. We have no interest in creating another hostile state. No matter how much we help the Palestinians, we will never get any credit for it, because we support their great enemy Israel -- which makes us ultimately their enemy too. Oh they'll gladly take our money as long as we are stupid enough to give it to them, but it won't make them like us. I have little doubt that many Palestinians probably laugh privately at our foolishness.
LIVE: President Trump Holds a Rally in Salem, VA - 11/2/24
24 minutes ago
As much as I detest the methods used by the Palestinians, and have to agree with you that a state in Palestine would not benefit the united states; I must say that I do sympathize with the Palestinians. The land that made up the state of Israel never should have gone to anyone but the new Arabian nations formed after WWII. Furthermore, I feel the creation of the state of Israel was a mistake; all it has done is help inflame an entire region of the globe against the west, and create a huge liability for the USA in the region.
ReplyDelete"I must say that I do sympathize with the Palestinians."
ReplyDeleteI don't. They are as undeserving of sympathy as they are of a state. Obviously I'm generalizing, I'm sure there are individual Palestinians that are worthy of sympathy.
"The land that made up the state of Israel never should have gone to anyone but the new Arabian nations formed after WWII"
I disagree. The Jews had historic roots there too, and in the circumstances after the holocaust it was reasonable to recreate the state of Israel.
"Furthermore, I feel the creation of the state of Israel was a mistake; all it has done is help inflame an entire region of the globe against the west, and create a huge liability for the USA in the region. "
I disagree again. Israel is one of the few good things about the Middle East. Far from being a liability, it is a major strategic asset to the U.S. -- it is the only ally in the region we can actually count on in a true crisis situation. Given the nature of the other states in the region, if Israel didn't exist there would almost certainly be other reasons why they were anti-Western, and causing various problems. Israel is just an excuse.
"I disagree. The Jews had historic roots there too, and in the circumstances after the holocaust it was reasonable to recreate the state of Israel."
ReplyDeleteThe Jewish historic roots were several thousand years out of date. The land had, in one order or another, belonged to at least 13 different empires and groups over the last 2500 years. Israel existed for a very small fraction of that time. Furthermore, at the time of the creation of the Israeli state, the Palestinian population was only 30-40% Jewish; most of which had emigrated within the last 20 years. Hardly the sort of long term claims the arabs have/had.
As for the idea that the holocaust justifies the creation of a state, not so much. Once again, I feel stronger claims existed to the land; an atrocity by a third party doesn't supersede those claims.
"
I disagree again. Israel is one of the few good things about the Middle East. Far from being a liability, it is a major strategic asset to the U.S. -- it is the only ally in the region we can actually count on in a true crisis situation. Given the nature of the other states in the region, if Israel didn't exist there would almost certainly be other reasons why they were anti-Western, and causing various problems. Israel is just an excuse. "
Israel is the only ally we have because everyone else sees our support of Israel as a major issue. the Middle East fears/distrusts/hates the USA because they feel we meddle and interfere far too much in their internal affairs, and, in short, have screwed with them in the past. Israel plays a large part in those feelings.
"The Jewish historic roots were several thousand years out of date."
ReplyDeleteJews lived continuously in the area. And in any event, there was no state there at all. So something was being created that hadn't existed.
"Hardly the sort of long term claims the arabs have/had. "
Their long term claims are no better and arguably worse. There was never an Arab state of Palestine. It was always under the rule of some outside entity. At least there was an Israel at one time.
"As for the idea that the holocaust justifies the creation of a state, not so much. Once again, I feel stronger claims existed to the land; an atrocity by a third party doesn't supersede those claims. "
Again, I disagree that the Arabs had a stronger claim. There isn't much of a claim to something that never existed. And creating the state of Israel wasn't in any way an "atrocity." During the process of decolonization border lines had to be drawn and arbitrary lines established. It's ridiculous to pretend that giving a tiny sliver of land to Jews with a historic claim to it was some sort of horrible thing to do. You are apparently forgetting that the Palestinians were also give part of the region -- a large part I might add. They chose instead to try to take it all and were defeated. They deserve their fate.
"Israel is the only ally we have because everyone else sees our support of Israel as a major issue."
It isn't our only ally in the region. We have others because they need us as allies despite their irrational hatred of Jews. It is our only reliable ally. It is highly unlikely that other allies like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and the Gulf States would be any more reliable in the absence of Israel, because they would still have the same internal instability.
"the Middle East fears/distrusts/hates the USA because they feel we meddle and interfere far too much in their internal affairs, and, in short, have screwed with them in the past."
Oh please. They dislike us no matter what we do. On the one hand they want our money and our assistance, and on the other hand they resent us. Their massive inferiority complex ,disfunctional societies, and religious lunacy are hardly our fault.
"Israel plays a large part in those feelings. "
Israel is merely an excuse.
"Their long term claims are no better and arguably worse. There was never an Arab state of Palestine. It was always under the rule of some outside entity. At least there was an Israel at one time."
ReplyDeleteA state that was out of existence since for thousands of years is no claim. The Arabs had been living in the area for generations; they were the indigenous people, and under the principles of de-colonization and the 14 points, the land should have gone to them, not to a bunch of emigrants.
"Again, I disagree that the Arabs had a stronger claim. There isn't much of a claim to something that never existed. And creating the state of Israel wasn't in any way an "atrocity." During the process of decolonization border lines had to be drawn and arbitrary lines established. It's ridiculous to pretend that giving a tiny sliver of land to Jews with a historic claim to it was some sort of horrible thing to do."
The atrocity I was talking about was the holocaust. Lines weren't really drawn during decolonization; the lines were drawn much earlier, when the land was originally colonized.
"Oh please. They dislike us no matter what we do. On the one hand they want our money and our assistance, and on the other hand they resent us. Their massive inferiority complex ,disfunctional societies, and religious lunacy are hardly our fault."
That really is too simplistic a view. The Arab world doesn't hate us for no good reason; Anger at colonialism and American actions in the middle east provided a perfect breeding ground for Islamic fundamentalism.
"A state that was out of existence since for thousands of years is no claim."
ReplyDeleteOf course it is. That's how states get recreated. Before the Greek Revolution in the early 19th Century, when was the last time that Greece existed as a state? For that matter, how long did the world do without most of the Balkan states? And a vanished state is still a better claim than a state that never existed.
"The Arabs had been living in the area for generations; they were the indigenous people"
So had the Jews, who were also indigenous.
"Lines weren't really drawn during decolonization; the lines were drawn much earlier, when the land was originally colonized. "
No, there were new lines drawn when the mandates were dissolved.
"That really is too simplistic a view."
That's funny, since I see your argument as simplistic combination of blaming America & former colonial powers that doesn't recognize all the problems that the Arab world has created, and continues to create for itself.
"Anger at colonialism and American actions in the middle east provided a perfect breeding ground for Islamic fundamentalism. "
Anger at colonialism is another excuse that is massively overblown. At some point former colonies have to take responsibility for their own actions and misdeeds. And in my opinion Islamic fundamentalism has little to do with American actions in the Middle East, other than the use of America as a scapegoat to focus attention outward against a perceived external enemy. Islamic fundamentalism is found outside the Middle East as well, and its rise isn't attributable to just one thing or another.
Of course it is. That's how states get recreated. Before the Greek Revolution in the early 19th Century, when was the last time that Greece existed as a state? For that matter, how long did the world do without most of the Balkan states? And a vanished state is still a better claim than a state that never existed......So had the Jews, who were also indigenous."
ReplyDeleteHere's the difference between Greece and Israel. Greece has always been occupied by the only the Greeks; they've been an overwhelming majority since antquity. In 1920's Palestine, about 11% of the population was jewish. By the 1940's, 30% was. So the vast majority of the jews that founded israel were not indigenous to the middle east.
"That's funny, since I see your argument as simplistic combination of blaming America & former colonial powers that doesn't recognize all the problems that the Arab world has created, and continues to create for itself."
I don't blame the west; I simply realize that our actions prompted the rise of Islamic extremism; however, I will agree with you that it is past time the Arab world grew up.
Yes, I know that Greece and Israel are not close to an exact analogy. I was responding only to your point about vanished states.
ReplyDelete"So the vast majority of the jews that founded israel were not indigenous to the middle east. "
True, but that's one reason why the Jews were only allotted a tiny sliver of territory, while everything else went to the Arabs. But even that tiny sliver was too much for them to accept.
Ultimately though, the question of whether or not creating Israel was a good idea -- something that could be argued about other states too -- is little more than an academic exercise.
"I simply realize that our actions prompted the rise of Islamic extremism"
That's not something to realize, that's an argument based on tunnel vision. As a religious/political movement, Islamic fundamentalism and its extremist off-shoots can't be attributed to any single factor. If there's one thing I learned in all my career as a professional history student, it's that causation in history is complex. The causes of great events and movements can almost never be neatly tied to one specific cause.
By the way,
ReplyDeleteI would like to thank you for coming here and disagreeing with me in a reasonable way. Having had sharply different responses from most other anonymous commenters in the past, I appreciate someone who can hold a rational debate.