Instapundit on Palestinians
Tags:
That said, I agree with Jan Haugland's position that Glenn Reynolds goes too far in his recent anti-Palestinian rant. As he responds:
Well, this is at least somewhat on topic, as it related to Israel and Arab nations...
After the 1973 war, the US considered invading certain Arab states to take their oil fields. I wonder how things would be today if they had done such a thing. I guess that the USSR would have reacted badly to that.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/01/britain.nixon.ap/index.html
Posted by: O'dell on January 2, 2004 7:37 PM | permalinkI do agree with you that Israel has a right to exist and like you, I find that like most countries; Israel has its postive and negative aspects. To be really honest, I have always wanted to travel to Israel and I intend on visiting someday.
Do you think that there should be an independent Palestine? From what I know and from my experiences with Israelis, it seems as if the Six Day War brought Israel the never ending 7th day...Also what do you think about that wall that is being built?
~James
Posted by: James on January 2, 2004 7:37 PM | permalinkTo play devil's advocate, why does Israel have a right to exist?
Posted by: on January 3, 2004 11:20 PM | permalinkThe same reason(s) the US has a right to exist.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on January 4, 2004 3:45 PM | permalinkWhat right is that?
Is it that the US exists because, after a struggle between different sets of European explorers to take over land from people who had arrived there first, one group managed to get it all and declare themselves independent?
At the turn of the 20th century, there were few Jews in Palestine (there were more Christians, in fact). Had Britain stuck with its promise to give Palestine its independence, the whole thing would be an Arab nation, and Israel would not exist today, at least not in that spot.
Posted by: O'dell on January 4, 2004 7:06 PM | permalinkO'dell:
If you don't think the US has a right to exist, there's no way I can convince you Israel does.
Personally, I think nations are sort of an anachronism, and I hope there's no need for them in the distant future.
But in the meantime, I find it absurd (at best) that no one makes existential arguments against, say, Sudan and Syria.
James:
I personally think Israel should vacate the Gaza Strip and most of the West Bank and there should be a Palestinian state on those lands. Ideally, Jordan would also become a democracy one day and, since it's majority Palestinian, it would be a de facto Palestinian state.
I think the wall could be of use in preventing Palestinian suicide attacks, but unless it coincides with an Israeli withdrawal and Palestinian declaration of independence, I think some terrorists would adopt other methods, such as the rocket attacks employed by Hizbollah in Lebanon. I do not like that the wall doesn't follow the "green line", nor do I like the idea of settlements in the West Bank.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on January 4, 2004 10:00 PM | permalinkSouth Africa was also a 'liberal democracy' during the Apartheid era. It just didn't provide universal suffrage to the blacks. Nobody disputed South Africa's 'right to exist.' However, many people took objection with Apartheid and the Bantustans.
Similarly, Israel has as much right to exist as any country - *but no right to oppressive the people in the occupied territories*! It must be some rather impressive set of mental gymnastics that enable you to consider the denial of suffrage, dispossession of land and water, and the suppression of human rights 'right.'
Posted by: Green Boy on January 6, 2004 4:16 PM | permalinkI said "in the broadest terms" for a reason.
I'm not happy with the Israeli government, but there is no comparison with the awfulness that is the PA or groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Surely the US of the 1940's was seriously flawed (e.g. segregation and lack of suffrage for blacks), but I hope you wouldn't dispute that we were on the "right" side in WWII.
"Israel has as much right to exist as any country - *but no right to oppressive the people in the occupied territories*!"
Well, then you're in a small minority of anti-Israel critics.
It must take some sweet mental gymnastics on your own part to bitch on your blog about me not reading your archives when you fail to read the comment above your own, where I support:
* dismantling settlements
* evacuating the Territories
* the formation of a Palestinian state
Sorry I didn't write back right away! Though the wall might be effective for the time being I, like you, think in the long run that it will fail as all walls have...it happened in Berlin...and in China.
The settlements must go (and Sharon too) and there must be an independent Palestine, I think, it order to ensure Israel's survival.
~James
Posted by: James on January 6, 2004 5:23 PM | permalinkFair enough. I'll peruse your archives. In the meantime:
"there is no comparison with the awfulness that is the PA or groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad."
Of course not. Israel has an army - why would Israelis need to commit acts of terror to obtain their civil liberties? However, I believe ardent Zionists, desiring to establish a homeland in Palestine, did in fact resort to 'acts of terror' against the occupying British and against Palestinians (http://www.redress.btinternet.co.uk/skabbani.htm). Although apparently the military crackdown wasn't enough for some Israeli extremists - check out this link about some folks recently trying to blow up Palestinian schoolgirls http://www.needlenose.com/pMachineFree2.2.1/comments.php?id=P447_0_1_0_C
"Surely the US of the 1940's was seriously flawed (e.g. segregation and lack of suffrage for blacks), but I hope you wouldn't dispute that we were on the "right" side in WWII."
Why are you so 'hung up' on a right and a wrong side in this conflict? Both sides are both somewhat right and somewhat wrong. Blowing up civilians in a bus is wrong. Likewise, tearing down people's houses and shooting peace protesters is wrong. Colonizing land taken through conquest is wrong - don't take my word for it, it's against international law.
I don't quite understand your nonsequitor comment about segregation in the U.S. and the its conduct in WWII. Are you implying that U.S. blacks didn't have suffrage in the 40s? Technically they did, but many were denied suffrage in the South due to 'Jim Crow' laws. But if I understand you correctly, you are implying that even though the U.S. was 'wrong' in its management of civil liberties, it was still 'right' to fight the Nazis. Well that's my point exactly! If the other Arab countries try to invade Israel again, I certainly wouldn't dispute Israel's right to defend itself - *but that doesn't justify the denial of civil liberties to individuals already suffering under a 40+ year occupation*. That would be like saying "Hey! We defeated the Nazis, so it's okay that we deny Southern Blacks the vote. How do you figure?
To your final point "Well, then you're in a small minority of anti-Israel critics." I'd say sure - here in the U.S. Worldwide, however, I'd say I was in the majority: http://www.needlenose.com/pMachineFree2.2.1/comments.php?id=P568_0_1_0_C
Posted by: Green Boy on January 6, 2004 5:48 PM | permalinkOkay, I searched through your archives using your search tool - "settlements" nothing came up. "evacuating territories" ditto. "Palestinian State" - didn't find any posts where you came out in favor of it. What did I miss?
Posted by: Green Boy on January 6, 2004 6:01 PM | permalinkI don't accept your premise that the goal of Palestinian terrorism is simply to obtain civil liberties.
As you point out, Israeli terrorists are tried and imprisoned by your friend Ariel Sharon.
"Both sides are both somewhat right and somewhat wrong."
You can say that about any conflict. Then why support or criticize any people, movement or cause?
I'm glad you would support Israel's right to self-defense, despite its flaws (yes, that was the thrust of my analogy), though I'm astonished you can reconcile this with returning the Golan Heights to Syria.
Similarly, you misunderstood my "minority" remark. I'm saying that a minority of anti-Zionists accept Israel's right to exist. You sided with the minority on that one.
Apropos the search, I was referring to the comments section of this page.
As far as the EU poll goes, of course anti-Israel extremists can shape public opinion: http://memri.org/video/
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on January 6, 2004 6:34 PM | permalinkThe *comments* section? You expect me to grunge through your un-indexed posts to try to determine your position?!? In reading your *posts*, it seems that you've got plenty of time to lambast American journalists, politicians and bloggers for their lack of objectivity, acting almost like a one-man C.A.M.E.R.A. And that's not counting your 'drive-by' attacks on sites like Needlenose. But you can't be bothered to once write a post questioning Israeli's campaign to colonize the occupied territories? Not a single post about how the recent shooting and killing of a Jewish peace activist might have been over-the-line? Where is the Joe Grossberg Roadmap for Peace?
Your schtick seems to be railing against other people's lack of objectivity, but your web site is as partisan as any Palestinian site that I've seen. You hold Americans to a higher standard of pro-Israel writing than I saw in the English-language papers in Israel, which reporting Palestinian issues and grievances in-depth.
You don't do Israel any favors by attacking American progressives for daring to question Israel's international-law violating (Geneva Convention, UN Resolutions) and human-rights violating policies in the occupied territories, especially since America's generous support helps make it happen.
Don't bother responding to this post as I see no further reason to visit this obviously one-sided and partisan site. If and when you do write an actual *post* laying out the 'Grossberg Peace Principles* or the *Grossberg Peace Roadmap*, feel free to email me and I'd be happy to take a look at it.
Posted by: Green Boy on January 8, 2004 12:28 PM | permalinkNo, but I do expect you to read the comments section of a post before you add to it.
As far as the "drive-by" comments ... doesn't everyone visit a site for the first time?
And don't tell me what I can and cannot write on my own site. Believe it or not, the world doesn't revolve around you and if I respond to your statements it's not solely because I want you to read it.
I didn't write the original post for Glen Reynold's (Instapundit) sake and I'm not just writing this comment for yours ... oops, I forgot -- you'll never see this!
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on January 8, 2004 1:16 PM | permalinkNo more comments! Either someone has violated Godwin's Law, I'm tired of the discussion or, most likely, the ten-week window has closed. You can, however, contact me through email.