War for Settlements

One often hears it said that the Israel-Palestine conflict isn't really about Israeli occupation of the territories conquered in the 1967 war. That Israel is prepared to withdraw from these territories in order to make a secure peace but that, unfortunately, the Palestinians won't agree. The New Republic's editor in chief, Martin Peretz, had one of his occasional posts in which he usefully points out that this isn't actually the case a couple of days ago:

Greater Jerusalem is still a vague concept and a vaguer reality. But its outlines are clear. There are some contiguous Jewish neighborhoods east of the city proper, big neighborhoods. There is no way these will be forfeited from Israeli under any agreement. Basta! Finito! Gemacht! Dayenu!

These "neighborhoods" are, of course, settlements built on conquered land. Somewhat similarly, although this time not presuming to speak for the Israeli government, Peretz wrote of his desire to maintain Israeli occupation of the Jordan River Valley and to see the population of 10,000 Israeli settlers living there grow.

Comments

I'm getting a headache just thinking of what SLC is going to say here, and I don't have the energy to come up with a long comment. But I should point out that East Jerusalem is the center of Palestinian life in every sense, and has been for thousands of years.

Posted by Freddie | August 28, 2007 2:53 PM

US President George W. Bush warned Tuesday that letting Iran acquire atomic weapons risked putting the Middle East "under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust."

"Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust," he told a veterans group here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The man has no sense of irony. "A region known for instability and violence"? Gee, do you think that instability and violence is any fricking better since you came along?

Posted by steve duncan | August 28, 2007 2:54 PM

I don't think those settlements/neighborhoods are a "settlements" issue so much as they're part of the very complicated "Jerusalem" issue. Their presence doesn't make things easier on the Palestinians, but the Jordanian ban on Israeli access to Jewish holy sites before '67 also didn't help matters, and neither did Arafat's explicit denial of any Jewish connection to the Temple Mount.

Sorting out which part of Jerusalem belongs to which state, which neighborhood in the Old City belongs to whom, what sort of sovereignty arrangements will apply to the holy sites, etc--those are the truly difficult issues that have to be resolved regarding Jerusalem. They would be no less difficult even if Israel hadn't built any settlements/neighborhoods/whatever in eastern Jerusalem after '67. If enough goodwill and courage can be summoned on all sides to resolve THOSE Jerusalem issues, then the settlements in the eastern part of the city won't be nearly as tough. They're not exactly the same type of "settlement" issue as some of the more far-flung ones like in Hebron, i.e. wholly untenable settlements that can't conceivably remain there under any final agreement.

Posted by Haggai | August 28, 2007 2:56 PM

Settlements today, settlements tomorrow, settlements to the far horizon.

Posted by SLC | August 28, 2007 2:56 PM

war crimes today, war crimes tomorrow, war crimes to the end of eternity.

Posted by ndm | August 28, 2007 2:59 PM

But I should point out that East Jerusalem is the center of Palestinian life in every sense, and has been for thousands of years.

Yes, and I should point out that the Jewish quarter of the Old City was the center of Jewish life in Jerusalem for thousands of years, with the exception of '48 through '67. So the question of settlements and occupation is not so clear cut in Jerusalem. Israelis who said for decades that "dividing Jerusalem" was unacceptable in any peace agreement were engaging in wishful thinking, but so is anyone who thinks that returning to the exact '67 boundaries can work in Jerusalem.

Posted by Haggai | August 28, 2007 3:01 PM

Re ndn

Yessir, Mr. ndn is obviously discussing Hafaz Assad, the author of Hama rules.

Posted by SLC | August 28, 2007 3:03 PM

Israelis who said for decades that "dividing Jerusalem" was unacceptable in any peace agreement were engaging in wishful thinking, but so is anyone who thinks that returning to the exact '67 boundaries can work in Jerusalem

Sure. But then, there isn't an editor-in-chief of a (still) very influential national political magazine advocating giving the entirety of Jerusalem to the Palestinians, is there? I'm disagreeing with Peretz's desire for Israelis to control the entirety of Jerusalem, not advocating total Palestinian control.

By the way, I've come to the conclusion that "SLC" is the pen name of Yigal Amir.

Posted by Freddie | August 28, 2007 3:23 PM

As always, Peretz's tough talk gives one the distinct sense that he's compensating for something.

Posted by M. Duss | August 28, 2007 3:48 PM

I should point out that East Jerusalem is the center of Palestinian life in every sense, and has been for thousands of years. - Freddie

WTF?

How have there been (Arab speaking, e.g.) Palestinians for thousands of years?

I guess about 1500 years is "thousands of years".

I'm usually playing anti-Zionist to SLC and Haggai, but Haggai is right here. To deny us Jews access to the Old City of Jerusalem (which is what, given the history of things from 1948-1967, Palestinian control of East Jerusalem would likely mean (*) ) is like denying Catholics access to the Vatican or Anglicans access to Canterbury.

Any solution that does not guaran-f'in-tee Jewish access to the Jerusalem is a complete no go even to us moonbat, liberals who have huge issues with Zionism.

*and we already saw a taste of it: I detest Sharon, but to say "he had no business going to the Temple Mount and provoking those Palestinians"? Unless his liberty was deprived via due process of law, he had every right to visit the Temple Mount. First it's Sharon they say "shouldn't go" ... what's next? that I can't go because I'm a Jew?

Posted by DAS | August 28, 2007 3:50 PM

Jesus.

Again, I didn't fucking say that the Palestinians should have sole control of Jerusalem, which is in marked contrast to what Marty Peretz is advocating. Precisely what are the odds, do you think, that Palestinians are going to have sole control of Jerusalem in the next century? A million to one? And what are the odds of the reverse? Much, much better. I can't understand the kind of blinkered perspective that's required to miss the fact that the Israelis are in every sense the overdog, that they actually have the capacity to force all Palestinians permanently out of Jerusalem, and they have the political juice in this country to generate American support for such a thing. There is a legitimate threat that what Peretz and SLC want could come to pass. There is no threat whatsoever that Israelis will be shut out of Jerusalem by Palestinians. And, I hate to be a broken record, but I didn't say they should.

Apparently suggesting that Jews be shut out of the Temple mount is inexcusable, but saying Muslims should be shut out of the Dome of the Rock isn't.

Posted by Freddie | August 28, 2007 3:59 PM

Surely these Jewish "neighborhoods" are not part of East Jerusalem proper - they are not part of the area that the UN designated to be an international city in 1947, nor are they part of what the Jordanians considered to be East Jerusalem. They are areas surrounding East Jerusalem proper, i.e. they are in the West Bank.

Marty Peretz isn't talking about making sure the old Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall remain part of Israel. He is talking about the preservation of post-1967 Jewish settlements in the vicinity of Jerusalem.

Posted by John | August 28, 2007 4:09 PM

I'd also add that the Israeli position has never been complete withdrawal from the West Bank--just from most parts (barrels of ink have been spilled over whether UN Res. 242 was meant to require complete withdrawal or not). Israel has been and remains willing to withdraw from a large portion of the West Bank--the sticking points for those who are okay with a two-state solution are a) whether "large portion" is enough, and b) if so, what will be the precise borders.

The Jordan Valley is an interesting issue in its own right--it's (relatively) sparsely populated, Israel would like to keep it because they have some militarily critical early-warning posts out there (with Iran's increased belligerency, it'll be tough to convince them to give those up), and I've also heard that Jordan quietly but firmly wants Israel to maintain control of the area, as it is worried about incursions from newly emboldened Palestinian militants itself (recall that Jordan has a huge Palestinian population that gets restless at times).

Posted by David Schraub | August 28, 2007 4:09 PM

Re Haggai's comment "Yes, and I should point out that the Jewish quarter of the Old City was the center of Jewish life in Jerusalem for thousands of years, with the exception of '48 through '67"
--------
Yes, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote in 103 AD re the Jewish occupation of Jerusalem in 70 AD as the Roman Army under Titus approached the city:
*****

" All the most obstinate rebels had escaped into the place, and perpetual seditions were the consequence. There were three generals, and as many armies. Simon held the outer and larger circuit of walls. John, also called Bargioras, occupied the middle city. Eleazar had fortified the temple. John and Simon were strong in numbers and equipment, Eleazar in position. There were continual skirmishes, surprises, and incendiary fires, and a vast quantity of corn was burnt. Before long John sent some emissaries, who, under pretence of sacrificing, slaughtered Eleazar and his partisans, and gained possession of the temple. The city was thus divided between two factions, till, as the Romans approached, war with the foreigner brought about a reconciliation. "
*******
Yep, that sound about right.

Posted by Don Williams | August 28, 2007 4:12 PM

I'm usually playing anti-Zionist to SLC and Haggai, but Haggai is right here.

Well, I appreciate the support, but I hope you don't think my opinions are anywhere remotely in the neighborhood of SLC's. If you rate opinions from the Israeli side of things on a scale of 1-100, with 1 being the farthest left and 100 being the farthest right, I'm probably in the 35-40 range, while SLC is well into the 90s.

I've also heard that Jordan quietly but firmly wants Israel to maintain control of the area, as it is worried about incursions from newly emboldened Palestinian militants itself (recall that Jordan has a huge Palestinian population that gets restless at times).

This is a decades-old argument that doesn't hold up anymore. It did make some sense back when memories of Black September were still fresh, but once Hussein renounced any claims to the West Bank in 1988, and the idea of a Palestinian state became more generally accepted during the 1990s, it ceased to be of any relevance. Neither the Palestinians nor the Jordanians will accept Israeli control along any part of the Jordan River in any final status agreement.

Posted by Haggai | August 28, 2007 4:17 PM

Henry Siegman, the former head of the American Jewish Congress, has an article on The Great Middle East Peace Process Scam in the current issue of the London Review of Books. He writes:

The Middle East peace process may well be the most spectacular deception in modern diplomatic history. Since the failed Camp David summit of 2000, and actually well before it, Israel’s interest in a peace process – other than for the purpose of obtaining Palestinian and international acceptance of the status quo – has been a fiction that has served primarily to provide cover for its systematic confiscation of Palestinian land and an occupation whose goal, according to the former IDF chief of staff Moshe Ya’alon, is ‘to sear deep into the consciousness of Palestinians that they are a defeated people’. In his reluctant embrace of the Oslo Accords, and his distaste for the settlers, Yitzhak Rabin may have been the exception to this, but even he did not entertain a return of Palestinian territory beyond the so-called Allon Plan, which allowed Israel to retain the Jordan Valley and other parts of the West Bank.

It would be a nice outcome of the whole Mearsheimer and Walt brouhaha if articles like this were to appear in mainstream American magazines - rather than be placed in small UK magazines.

Posted by ndm | August 28, 2007 4:30 PM

I should point out that East Jerusalem is the center of Palestinian life in every sense, and has been for thousands of years.

Freddie,

I am a staunch supporter of Palestinian rights and believe that some part of Jerusalem ought to be available as the capital of a Palestinian state, but the above is utter nonsense (unless you use "Palestinian" to include Jews, Armenians, Greeks, etc). In 1896, for example (i.e. still under the Ottomans and before any significant European Jewish immigration), the population of Jerusalem consisted of 28,112 Jews, 8748 Christians of various denominations, and 8560 Muslims. Jerusalem was a pilgrim site for Muslims because of the Dome of the Rock, but other than that it was never of any political importance to Arabs or Muslims. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is thorny enough without hyperbole about "thousands of years".

Posted by Peter | August 28, 2007 4:31 PM

Alright.

Posted by Freddie | August 28, 2007 4:35 PM

In his Memoirs, British PM David Lloyd George included a report from Lord Curzon re the current state of Palestine and it's limited ability to support Jewish immigration. An excerpt on the population of Palestine at that time (1917):

"Palestine, on the other hand, before the war [WWI] contained a population the highest estimate of which was between 600,000 and 700,000 persons, of which less than one-quarter were Jews and the remainder (except for small Christian communities or settlements) Moslems. The Jews were to a large extent congregated in the few towns, e.g., in Jerusalem, where, out of a total population of 80,000, 55,000 were Jews - for the most part living on alms or charity, or old men come to end their days in the Holy City. The Jewish colonies, about which so much has been said, contained a population of only 11,000. The remainder of the Jews were in the other towns and parts of the country.

Since the War the Turks have reduced the country to a condition of abject debasement. The Jewish colonies have either been dislocated or broken up, the various missionary establishments, except the German and Spanish, have disappeared, the local inhabitants have been conscripted and to a large extent destroyed on the front, the urban populations have been reduced to beggary, and colonies of Turkomans, Circassians, Kurds, and other savage races have been planted about to hold the country in subjection. "

Posted by Don Williams | August 28, 2007 4:43 PM

The idea that Arabs are a recent arrival in Palestine has largely been abandoned by even conservative Israeli scholars, as it simply isn't historically supportable. Benny Morris, for example, has said as much. There have been Arabs in Palestine for, yes, thousands of years.

Posted by Freddie | August 28, 2007 4:47 PM

In his report, Lord Curzon also noted the religious importance of Jerusalem to multiple faiths at that point in time (1917):
--------
"I spoke earlier of the dreams of those who foresee a Jewish State, with possibly a Jewish capital at Jerusalem. Such a dream is rendered wholly incapable of realisation by the conditions of Jerusalem itself. It is a city in which too many peoples and too many religions have a passionate and permanent interest to render any such solution even dimly possible. The Protestant communities are vitally interested in

{p. 731} the churches and in the country as the scenes of the most sacred events in history. The Roman Catholics collect annually large sums and maintain extensive establishments at Jerusalem and Bethlehem. The Greek Orthodox Church regards the Holy Places with an almost frenzied reverence. Great pilgrimages come annually from the Slav countres and Russia. I recall a fourishing Russian monastery on Mount Tabor. The Hellenic clergy have large properties in the country.

Finally, next to Mecca and Medina, Jerusalem is the most sacred city of the Mohammedan faith. The Mosque of Omar, {ed. - the Dome of the Rock} on the site of the Temple of Solomon, is one of the most hallowed of the shrines of Islam. It contains the great rock or stone, from which Mohammed ascended on the back of his miraculous steed to Heaven, and which is regarded with so much awe in the Moslem world that when, a few years ago, an Englishman was alleged to have been digging under it, the uproar spread throughout the Moslem world. It is impossible to contemplate any future in which the Mohammedans should be excluded from Jerusalem. Hebron is a site scarcely less sacred to Islam. It is no doubt from a full consciousness of these facts that the wisest of the Zionists forgo any claim to the recovery of Jerusalem as the centre and capital of a revived Jewish State, and hope only that it may remain as a sort of enclave in international, if not in British, hands. "

-----------
I assume the above considerations are why Tel Aviv was built.

Posted by Don Williams | August 28, 2007 4:57 PM

If you rate opinions from the Israeli side of things on a scale of 1-100, with 1 being the farthest left and 100 being the farthest right, I'm probably in the 35-40 range, while SLC is well into the 90s. - Haggai

Reading again what I wrote it's clear to me I lumped you and SLC rather unfairly together. You certainly are well to the left of SLC here (btw, how did left and right get to imply what they do here? wasn't Zionism at one time considered to be a lefty sort of ideology?).

Interestingly, I would reckon on the scale you mention, I'm about in the 25 range, at least in terms of Israeli politics. What I find very odd is that someone with my viewpoints would be, in the scale of viewpoints in a typical American synagogue, for example, in the teens. Why the discrepency?

Posted by DAS | August 28, 2007 5:00 PM

These "neighborhoods" are, of course, settlements built on conquered land.

And that makes them different from the neighborhoods a few miles west how, exactly? Why does it matter whether Israel conquered these few acres in 1967 or 1948?

Posted by Juan | August 28, 2007 5:05 PM

There have been Arabs in Palestine for, yes, thousands of years. - Freddy

Bedoins, yes. Even a religious nut would have to admit that given what it says in the Bible about there being such a presence. But the "Palestinian Arabs" we're talking about are not Bedoins (sp?). Where is the evidence of any Arab presence in the land of Israel in pre-Moslem times beyond a few nomadic pastoralists?

I don't see the Romans figuring out how to balance Arab vs. Jewish needs, etc.

Anyway, around 1948 lots of groups were forcibly relocated ... and somehow we're only concerned about the Palestinians? Back at that time it was accepted that such migrations were necessary to prevent a repeat of how the boundary drawing after WWI helped lead to WWII -- you can't draw boundaries, no matter how fair, without moving people into them.

Interestingly, many of our current hot-spots in terms of threats to World Peace are those in which those movements were not accepted or even attempted. Who's getting worked up about Karelian Finns? Or for that matter Mizrachi Jews? But with the Palestinians whose population transfer was never accepted (and whose refugee status is being immorally maintained not only by Israelis but by the Arab world) and with the various groups in the former Yugoslavia where Tito decided to try to force people to live in harmony no matter how much they wanted to kill each other, well ... you know what we see ...

Posted by DAS | August 28, 2007 5:09 PM

These "neighborhoods" are, of course, settlements built on conquered land.

And that makes them different from the neighborhoods a few miles west how, exactly? Why does it matter whether Israel conquered these few acres in 1967 or 1948?

Matt Y., John ... where do y'all live? I bet you're living in a neighborhood built on conquered (or maybe land obtained via price-fraud) land -- what does it matter 17th century or 18th century or 1948?

The fact of the matter is that even in 1948, it was common practice to move large groups of people around ... ask the Karelian Finns. And don't forget about the Poles who found themselves otherwise in Russia! And the Hindus of what's now Pakistan, etc, etc.

By 1967 things were different. But still, the war in 1967 was arguably a defensive war (let's have armies amassed on our borders in the USA and see how people respond ... I think even many of us who find the "9/11 changed everything and cheney my erstwhile liberal principles" crowd to be a bunch of bedwetters would be pushing for some sort of military response and not wanting to wait for an invasion) -- and even today, AFAIK, you get to keep territories you win if you've won them in the course of defending yourself.

So why can't Israel build some settlements. I'm not saying Israel should ... but to view Israel as teh evil and teh cause of all that is wrong in the Levant as some seem to be doing -- or even to view the settlements that way -- is simply wrong. And ya gotta wonder why this condemnation of Israel ...

Posted by DAS | August 28, 2007 5:18 PM

Re DAS's comment "The fact of the matter is that even in 1948, it was common practice to move large groups of people around ... ask the Karelian Finns"
---------
You might like what Hitler did with the East European Jews? I'm confused -- what kind of policies are we trying to defend here?

Posted by Don Williams | August 28, 2007 5:24 PM

Don Williams,

Palestine circa 1917 could support very little immigration of any kind, because centuries of Ottoman neglect had turned it into a wasteland. It was mostly a land of swamps and deserts. It was only after Zionist immigrants drained swamps, built infrastructure (e.g., the modern port and city at Tel Aviv), and introduced modern forms of irrigation and agriculture that the land was able to support more people. That's when the majority of the ancestors of those who now call themselves "Palestinian" immigrated to what is now Israel from neighboring countries.

Palestine in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was a desolate place. Look up some of the earliest photographs taken there. See, for example, this photo of the Dome of the Rock, taken in 1877. Note the weeds sprouting up between the rocks in front of this third-holiest site in Islam, when this city was under Islamic rule.

Posted by Chaim | August 28, 2007 5:26 PM

Interestingly, I would reckon on the scale you mention, I'm about in the 25 range, at least in terms of Israeli politics. What I find very odd is that someone with my viewpoints would be, in the scale of viewpoints in a typical American synagogue, for example, in the teens. Why the discrepency?

Many Israelis who are solidly on the left of their country's security-related political spectrum are farther to the right on the American scale. For instance, plenty of solidly left Israelis who couldn't stand Sharon take umbrage whenever anyone claims that Bush's policies have been bad for Israel, as my mom experienced on a recent trip back (she grew up there).

I fail to see what's so surprising when the debate about Country A's policies is somewhat more varied and dynamic in Country A itself than it is in Country B. The U.S. debate about Israeli policies is not likely to be that much more nuanced or informed than the Israeli debate about U.S. policies.

Posted by Haggai | August 28, 2007 5:28 PM

Re DAS's comment "And ya gotta wonder why this condemnation of Israel ..."
--------
I don't condemn Israel, necessarily. But one of the reasons I'm concerned about this matter is that about 6000 American lives have been lost, probably 10,000 have been badly crippled for life, and $2 TRILLION of our badly needed tax dollars have went poof. For no good reason.

And when I look into WHY the Sept 11 attack occurred, I find a lot of people lying through their teeth -- even though those lies hurt America. I find out that one of the stated reasons for the attack is the --Truthful --claim that the US government has been supporting Israeli killing of Muslims.

When I ask why this is so -- why we sell Israel F16s with which to bomb Gaza apartment buildings, why we have given $91 Billion in aid, why we are even involved in this dogfight given that we get nothing in return -- I only get lies or sullen silence.

When I look at why our leaders constantly betray their constituents -- why they vote to condemn our sons to death for no good reason -- the only answer that makes sense is that they do it for the money.

For $Millions from billionaires who are strong supporters of Israel. From billionaires who sacrifice America for the sake of Israel even though this country has given them US citizenship and great wealth.

I don't blame Israel for our whores --although I think some governments of Israel have deserved to be hit in the teeth for sabotaging attempts to make peace.

I don't blame the Jewish people.

I know EXACTLY who to blame.

Posted by Don Williams | August 28, 2007 5:38 PM

Don Williams:

"You might like what Hitler did with the East European Jews? I'm confused -- what kind of policies are we trying to defend here?"

Let me help your confusion a little. What I did was kill millions of East European Jews -- shot and buried in mass graves, worked to death in concentration camps, etc. I did this in the course of a war he started under a pretext of defending the rights of ethnic Germans in other countries. What DAS is referring to are the population transfers initiated after World War II to eliminate these sorts of pretexts in the future. Thus, ethnic Sudetan Germans and others were resettled back into Germany.

Incidentally, after the establishment of Israel, hundreds of thousands of Jews were forced out of Arab countries where they had lived for centuries. No one considers them refugees today.

Posted by Hitler | August 28, 2007 5:41 PM

For instance, plenty of solidly left Israelis who couldn't stand Sharon take umbrage whenever anyone claims that Bush's policies have been bad for Israel, as my mom experienced on a recent trip back (she grew up there). - Haggai

I've known Israelis (and even Jews in this country who live in very insular environments) who are certainly well to the left of GW Bush or Christian Zionists even on issues relating directly to Israeli security concerns who nonetheless see nothing wrong with getting support from Christian Zionists and who think GW Bush is good for Israel.

Some of it is that, as you imply, these people don't understand the subtleties of what Christian Zionism, for example, really stands for given that they don't have any real direct knowledge or experience with fundamentalist Christianity.

I fail to see what's so surprising

What's suprising is that if you are in that 10 on the 1-100 scale range is that it is constantly implied that you are a bad Jew for not having a higher "score". It's one thing that the debate in Israel would be more varied and dynamic than it is here. But it's another thing when you have what would be a reasonably mainstream position in Israel but here you are accused of being a self-hating Jew.

Would these people accuse about 1/4 of Israel's population of being insufficiently committed to Israel's national security? I.e. people who've actually served in the IDF vs. being here, safe and sound, in the USA? The difference in the dynamics is not suprising, I guess you're right, but what's suprising is the vituperativeness against those of us who fail to tow a line that simply isn't towed by those who are actually on the front lines of the conflict, so to speak.

Posted by DAS | August 28, 2007 5:43 PM

DAS asks "So why can't Israel build some settlements."

The obvious answer is that the building of settlements in occupied territory is a war crime. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court states:

(viii) The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

Furthermore, the Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg defines war crimes as follows:

(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

The legal problem that Israel, and its supporters, refuse to face is that the settling of occupied territory that was legal a century ago is now a war crime. It may take some courageous Spanish prosecutor arresting an Israeli settler at passport control and charging him with a war crime to show that settlers are not above the law.

Posted by ndm | August 28, 2007 5:47 PM

"These "neighborhoods" are, of course, settlements built on conquered land."

So is the land you live on, Matt - when you find the living survivors of the Indians it was seized from and move out, we'll see how seriously you take this kind of thing.

Being serious for a moment, how do you think history works? When you lose a war, there are consequences. The Arab governments gambled in 1948, 1967, and 1973. They lost each time, and the consequence of that is lost land. It's always been that way, and it always will be that way.

Posted by James Robertson | August 28, 2007 5:49 PM

Re "What DAS is referring to are the population transfers initiated after World War II to eliminate these sorts of pretexts in the future "
-----------
Yeah, except when I look at the Balfour Declaration it doesn't say anything about population transfers. It says that
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine "

See -- you just have to look at the fine print. Says Israel should welcome Hamas into Tel Aviv and everybody links hands and sings Kumbaya.

Gee, I'm glad we cleared that up.

Although I'm still a little confused. When Balfour referred to "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" was he really just talking about those ghostly Bedouin nomads?
And if they were so few and elusive, how did Lord Curzon ever manage to count 700,000 of them?

Posted by Don Williams | August 28, 2007 5:52 PM

Despite the inordinate amount of blog space Matt gives to criticising Israel, he really has nothing interesting or new to say about the conflict. I guess it's a controversial topic so it increases his hit count.

Posted by Dave | August 28, 2007 6:01 PM

ndm,

"It may take some courageous Spanish prosecutor arresting an Israeli settler at passport control and charging him with a war crime to show that settlers are not above the law."

Will that same courageous Spanish prosecutor arrest a British resident of Gibraltar at passport control and charge him with war crime? Will a courageous Moroccan prosecutor then arrest some Spanish residents of Melilla at passport control and charge them with war crimes? Will a courageous Mexican prosecutor arrest a Texan at passport control and charge him with war crimes? Where do you imagine this ends?

Also, according to the 4th Geneva Convention, don't you have to take land from an internationally recognized sovereign to occupy it? Why has this aspect of international law been ignored in the case of Israel? The last internationally recognized sovereign of the West Bank, AFAIK, was Great Britain, under the League of Nations Palestine Mandate. Israel conquered the West Bank from Jordan, after Jordan attacked it. By any fair reading of international law (i.e., not a politicized twisting of it to apply a certain way to Israel), the West Bank should be Israel's, by right of conquest.

Posted by Juan | August 28, 2007 6:04 PM

It's one thing that the debate in Israel would be more varied and dynamic than it is here. But it's another thing when you have what would be a reasonably mainstream position in Israel but here you are accused of being a self-hating Jew.

Plenty of Israelis with mainstream views are lambasted as self-hating Jews by other Israelis who have unreasonable views. Some people are uninformed, or overly emotional about the issue, or just assholes. I don't think it's much more complicated than that.

Posted by Haggai | August 28, 2007 6:06 PM

ndm,

So the key is that Israel occupies the West Bank and Gaza Strip? Nu? Israel should have annexed the land and everything would be hunky-dory?

Anyway, the rule of law is important, but laws, in order to work as laws, must not be silly. Consider again James Robertson's point regarding how things work in the real world ... you want international law to get more respect? it needs to actually correspond with how things work in the real world and not merely be something with which to blugeon Israel ...

Posted by DAS | August 28, 2007 6:09 PM

Re Don Williams

1. Mr. Williams quote mines a statement by Lord Curzon concerning the attachment of Muslims to Jerusalem. Of course, Mr. Williams doesn't bother to mention that no place in the Quran is the city identified. Medina and Mecca are mentioned but Jerusalem is not.

2. Mr. Williams responds to Mr. DAS by pointing to the treatment of East European Jews by Hitler, et al. That's a very interesting comparison. If the Government of Israel has treated the Palestinians like Hitler treated the Jews, we wouldn't be having this conversation as there wouldn't be any Palestinians left to form a Palestinian state.

3. As usual, Mr. Williams neglects to mention the Jews who were ousted from Arab countries during and after 1948 (like Mr. Williams favorite target Haim Saben, native of Cairo). But of course, they don't count to the Don Williams of the world.

Re DAS & Haggi

1. The argument about how many people were living in Palestine between, say 1850 and 1917 has been argued extensively on this blog. As I have stated, the American writer Mark Twain visited the area in 1867 and it appeared to him to be rather desolate with Jerusalem appearing to have fewer inhabitants then his home town of Hannibal, Mo. This has been challenged by several responders, quoting other visitors and claiming estimates from census figures taken by the Ottoman Empire authorities (I have yet to see these other responders supply a number from these census figures; Mr. Williams' figure is from 1917, rather later then 1867). Unfortunately, as Mr. DAS points out, one can't determine how many of the inhabitants were people now identified as Palestinians and how many were Bedouins (basically non-permanent residents).

2. I am afraid that I must take exception to the score which Mr. DAS and Mr. Haggai have assigned to me which places me in the same category as the late and unlamented Meir Kahane. I have never advocated an Eichmann solution to the Palestinian problem or even expulsion, both of which Mr. Kahane advocated. I have advocated a get tough policy toward the Palestinian terrorists, including application of Hama rules. However, at any time that the Palestinians decide to behave themselves, I am perfectly willing to leave them alone.

Posted by SLC | August 28, 2007 6:11 PM

Re DAS's comment "Where is the evidence of any Arab presence in the land of Israel in pre-Moslem times beyond a few nomadic pastoralists?

I don't see the Romans figuring out how to balance Arab vs. Jewish needs, etc."
---------
Actually, the Roman historian Tacitus did discuss the nature of Jewish ownership of Palestine prior to the arrival of Roman forces:

"A great part of Judaea consists of scattered villages. They have also towns. Jersualem is the capital. There stood a temple of immense wealth. First came the city with its fortifications, then the royal palace, then, within the innermost defences, the temple itself. Only the Jew might approach the gates; all but priests were forbidden to pass the threshold.

While the East was under the sway of the Assyrians, the Medes, and the Persians, Jews were the most contemptible of the subject tribes.

When the Macedonians became supreme, King Antiochus strove to destroy the national superstition, and to introduce Greek civilization, but was prevented by his war with the Parthians from at all improving this vilest of nations; for at this time the revolt of Arsaces had taken place.

The Macedonian power was now weak, while the Parthian had not yet reached its full strength, and, as the Romans were still far off, the Jews chose kings for themselves.

Expelled by the fickle populace, and regaining their throne by force of arms, these princes, while they ventured on the wholesale banishment of their subjects, on the destruction of cities, on the murder of brothers, wives, and parents, and the other usual atrocities of despots, fostered the national superstition by appropriating the dignity of the priesthood as the support of their political power. "

Posted by Don Williams | August 28, 2007 6:14 PM

"including application of Hama rules."

Hama rules means killing tens of thousands of people based on where they live or suspicions about their family members' political or religion affiliations, then turning their neighborhoods into parking lots. You can't sanely advocate Israel do that.

Posted by rilkefan | August 28, 2007 6:17 PM

Note that MY's post -typically simplistic on this issue - ignores land swaps.

Posted by rilkefan | August 28, 2007 6:22 PM

Whatever Marty Peretz says goes, eh Matt? Funny.

Posted by Gator90 | August 28, 2007 6:35 PM

DAS appears to suggest war-crime laws are silly. International law is not silly. The Israeli settlement of citizens in occupied territory is silly. Western appeasement of the settlements is silly.

We need to make very clear to each and every Israeli settler in the Occupied Palestinian Territories that they risk facing a war crimes indictment if they continue to settle the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The major Western powers have failed their moral obligations and have allowed Israel to fail its legal obligation to the Palestinian people. Perhaps, as I suggested, a prosecutor in some minor European nation will display the moral courage that evades the US politicians who have been cowed into apathy by a morally despicable American-Zionist lobby.

Posted by ndm | August 28, 2007 6:44 PM

RE "Perhaps, as I suggested, a prosecutor in some minor European nation will display the moral courage that evades the US politicians "
------
given the muted "moral courage" they've shown over Darfur and Rwanda, I wouldn't hold my breath.

After all, Darfur and Rwanda don't have nukes.

Posted by Don Williams | August 28, 2007 6:55 PM

we have Crazy Man number one purposefully comparing his pro-Israeli sentiments to segregationist sentiments, and we have Crazy Man number two insisting that 1500 years is not a very long amount of time.

Seriously, actually try reading what your saying before you say it. If anyone is blinded by emotion, it's the three of you. Well, if insanity is an emotion anyway.

Posted by soullite | August 28, 2007 7:19 PM

DAS appears to suggest war-crime laws are silly. - ndm

Not all war crime laws are silly. Just those dealing with settlement of occupied territories, as not only are they rarely honored (c.f. Juan's examples as well as the US settling Sudeten refugees in occupied Germany) but it history has shown that breeching these laws is often necessary to maintain a lasting peace.

Moreover, these laws invite rather silly distinctions: is Israel occupying the West Bank or not? If Israel were to have just seized the West Bank and Gaza Strip and made them part of Israel (which there is ample precident for them to have done), would they the settlements then be legal?

If people are to actually defer to international law, and in particular to respect war crimes laws (which I think is actually very important), then those laws need to be worthy of respect. The laws, as they stand now, dealing with settlement of people in occupied territories (which also is something that can be a problem) are so hair-splitting in who is considered to have done wrong by them that they cast a bad light on all international law.

Posted by DAS | August 28, 2007 7:20 PM

Re rilkefan

My response to Mr. rilkefan is very simple. If one wants to make an omelet, one must break a few egg shells.

Re ndn

Mr. ndn apparently doesn't consider the ouster of Jews from Iraq and other Arab countries after 1948 to be a war crime or any other kind of crime. Of course not, to the ndns and Don Williams of the world, that's perfectly ok.

Posted by SLC | August 28, 2007 7:49 PM

DAS resorts to the weasel arguments of the war-crimes denialist. It is sad that everyone who seeks to defend Israel from moral and legal attack is reduced to idiocies such as querying: "is Israel occupying the West Bank or not?"

And there lies the tragedy that is Israel - a nation that has brought moral ruin to its supporters and physical ruin to its victims.

Posted by ndm | August 28, 2007 8:02 PM

This is a test of the MY early warning system for "anti-Semites".

Posted by Test Commentator | August 28, 2007 9:06 PM

Apparently Matt has taken to banning "anti-Semites" from his blog. Of course, SLC has not so been banned.

Matt believes that this is acceptable:

2. More ravings from whackjob Richard Steven Hack. This schmuck seems to fixated on the notion that Mossad agents are everywhere and dwatching everybody, except that they are apparently not watching him.

Posted by SLC | August 28, 2007 7:37 AM

But posts criticizing Zionist "whackjobs" aren't.

Matt learned this from Josh Marshall. Doesn't surprise me.

Posted by Carl Allen | August 28, 2007 9:17 PM

" the West Bank should be Israel's, by right of conquest."

Oh, brilliant, Juan. Then presumably all the residents of the West Bank should be Israeli citizens. Or were you thinking of some other solution?

Posted by Donald Johnson | August 28, 2007 9:56 PM

"Then presumably all the residents of the West Bank should be Israeli citizens."

They would be, if Israel claimed its right and annexed the West Bank, but of course it hasn't, so they're not.

Posted by Juan | August 28, 2007 10:34 PM

Matt is banning anti-Semites? I was wondering why the discussion in this thread seemed so rational.

Posted by Ragout | August 28, 2007 11:34 PM

I just think it is a shonde that nobody in blog comments has pointed out Peretz's (quite ironic) misuse of the word "DAYENU".

For the non-Jews in the audience, this is the chorus of a Passover song that means basically "it would have been enough". Each verse repeats another thing that god has done, where if god had stopped there we STILL would have been grateful. Peretz, having lived to see the State of Israel come back into creation, once again proves himself to be a greedy and lazy shmuck!

Posted by dan k | August 28, 2007 11:41 PM

from Letters to the New York Times
December 4, 1948

New Palestine Party
Visit of Menachem Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed

TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party” (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents.

Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin’s behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.

The public avowals of Begin’s party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.

Attack on Arab Village

A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants — 240 men, women, and children — and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.

The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party.

Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model.

During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.

The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots.

Discrepancies Seen

The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a “Leader State” is the goal.

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin’s efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.

The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.

(signed)

Isidore Abramowitz, Hannah Arendt, Abraham Brick, Rabbi Jessurun Cardozo, Albert Einstein, Herman Eisen, M.D., Hayim Fineman, M. Gallen, M.D., H.H. Harris, Zelig S. Harris, Sidney Hook, Fred Karush, Bruria Kaufman, Irma L. Lindheim, Nachman Maisel, Symour Melman, Myer D. Mendelson, M.D., Harry M. Orlinsky, Samuel Pitlick, Fritz Rohrlich, Louis P. Rocker, Ruth Sager, Itzhak Sankowsky, I.J. Schoenberg, Samuel Shuman, M. Znger, Irma Wolpe, Stefan Wolpe

New York, Dec. 2, 1948

Posted by Albert Einstein | August 29, 2007 12:56 AM

1. Mr. Yglesias has not indicated that he is specifically banning Richard Steven Hack from this blog but apparently some commentators have concluded that he has. However, if he has, I would hope that it is not because of possible antisemitic comments by Mr. Hack but because Mr. Hack is obviously a raving lunatic and conspiracy buff.

2. I'm not quite sure what the point of the posting of the letter to the New York Times from the late Prof. Einstein is. There is no question that Begin, Shamir et al were terrorists (the latter was heavily implicated in the bombing of the King David Hotel). It should be noted that the current President of the PA, Mahmoud Abbas was a terrorist who has been accused of providing funds for the hijacking of the French aircraft to Entebbe. Jomo Kenyatta, Anwar Sadat, and Nelson Mandela were also accused of being terrorists by the British Government. The point is that todays' terrorist may be tomorrows' statesman.

Posted by SLC | August 29, 2007 7:33 AM

I just think it is a shonde that nobody in blog comments has pointed out Peretz's (quite ironic) misuse of the word "DAYENU". - dan k

I'm slapping myself for not catching this one myself. Not only is Peretz's use bizarre, but to add to dan's explanation, the word "dayenu" is often used ironically, and in a way meaning exactly the opposite of what Peretz seems to think it means (yet another example of how people like Peretz just need a good smack-down from Inigo Montoya).

You see, in the song dan k mentions, we sing of all these things God did for us ... but some of them are maybe things that place some burdons on us (e.g. the Law of Torah) ... so "dayenu" isn't just "it would have been enough" but is used often to mean "enough already" or "that's going too far".

So is Peretz saying that Israeli claims to greater Jerusalem go too far?

Somehow I think not. I think he's just proved yet again, as people of his ilk often do, that he ignores much of the Jewish tradition in his attempts to be a defender of the Jewish state.

Posted by DAS | August 29, 2007 10:03 AM

Mr. Williams quote mines a statement by Lord Curzon concerning the attachment of Muslims to Jerusalem. Of course, Mr. Williams doesn't bother to mention that no place in the Quran is the city identified. Medina and Mecca are mentioned but Jerusalem is not.

This is actually not true - the Quran does mention the city of Mecca (once), but nowhere does it mention Medina accept in the sense of using the word Medina (which means city). The Quran does refer to the actual mosques though - the Masjid Al-Haram and the Masjid Al-Aqsa, which are the actual holy places.

Posted by Sajid | August 29, 2007 1:13 PM

But it doesn't refer to Jerusalem, Sajid? Even though Mohamed allegedly flew up to heaven on a magic horse from there?

Posted by Juan | August 29, 2007 1:32 PM

Re Juan's comment "But it [Quran] doesn't refer to Jerusalem, Sajid? Even though Mohamed allegedly flew up to heaven on a magic horse from there?"

------------
Sigh.

The Masjid Al-Aqsa is the huge Mosque LOCATED IN JERUSALEM. See
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Mosque

Moreover, to talk of Judaism and Islam as two SEPARATE religions is a mistake. Islam --in its view at least -- subsumes Judaism. The Jewish prophets --especially Abraham -- are also revered
by the Muslims. The same for some of the religious sites.

An analogy would be if Roman Catholics claimed Protestant Christians had no right of access to
early Christian sites like Bethleham.

Even within Israel herself, the fur sometimes flies between Reform rabbis and Orthodox rabbis.

In my personal belief, it is not good to disobey the most fundamental Commandments from God in order to wage wars over these differences of belief. If the Muslims are wrong, let him judge and correct them. They are still human beings. Same goes for the Jews and various sects of Christians.

Posted by Don Williams | August 29, 2007 2:04 PM

Re Don Williams

1. As usual, Mr. Williams shades the truth. The mosque to which he refers was constructed after the alleged ascent of Mohammed. It is built on the site of the second temple of Solomon which was destroyed in 67 CE by the Roman Army; by the way, a fragment of the temple survives to this day, which is known as the wailing wall. Therefore, it is quite legitimate to claim that the Moslems who built the Al Asqa Mosque 8 centuries or more later hijacked the site from its Hebrew owners.

2. Once again, Mr. Williams leaves out part of the story. According to the teachings of the Roman Catholic and many Protestent Churches, Judaism is subsumed in Christianity. Obviously, Christians and Muslims can't both be right.

3. Gee, Mr. Williams says that Reform Jews and Orthodox Jews in Israel don't get along (they don't get along in the US either). What a revelation! Many of the various Christian sects in Israel don't get along either (consider the tension between the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches over access to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher). Not to mention the tensions between Sunni and Shiite Moslems in Iraq and elsewhere.

Posted by SLC | August 29, 2007 3:16 PM

Don Williams,

Everyone is aware of the location of the Dome of the Rock -- it's only the most famous (and contentious) building in Jerusalem. If you think it was necessary to put this fact in ALL CAPS, you need to get over yourself. My point remains that Jerusalem is never mentioned the Quran. The Quran refers only to "the furthest Mosque" without bothering to specify where this might be. Why the 9th Caliph happened to build this mosque smack on top of the holiest site in Judaism is an interesting question.

It's possible he built it there because he actually believed this to be the site of Mohammed's alleged assent into heaven. Another possibility suggests itself though, by this line from the frieze on the Mosque's wall:

"It is not for God to take a son."

Building the Aqsa Mosque on Judaism's holiest site and writing that line on it denying a fundamental precept of Christian theology suggest that the Caliph may have chosen that site for the Mosque out of spite, to stick to the two older religions.

As for this ludicrous statement of yours:

"Moreover, to talk of Judaism and Islam as two SEPARATE religions is a mistake."

Of course it isn't a mistake -- they are two separate religions. That Muslims consider their religion to have "subsumed" Judaism is irrelevant; Muslims also think Islam subsumes Christianity, as Mohammed's Quran was the "final" revelation. This is the only consistent position for Muslims to hold regarding older religions from which their religion has borrowed extensively. By the same token, the Baha'is believe their faith subsumes Islam.

Posted by Juan | August 29, 2007 3:53 PM

Notice something about that letter to the editor by those anti-Begin American Jews? The physicians got "M.D.s" after their names, but Albert Einstein, one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, didn't warrant a "Ph.D." after his. A perfect example of the ridiculously high status physicians have in America versus doctors of other fields.

Posted by Dr. Doctor | August 29, 2007 5:24 PM

But it doesn't refer to Jerusalem, Sajid? Even though Mohamed allegedly flew up to heaven on a magic horse from there?

Who cares? The only city that the Quran ever mentions by name is Mecca (and only once at that), the name of the city is irrelevant compared to the actual significance place. It mentions the Mosque, it mentions the Temple that Solomon built - why is the fact that it mentions the city's name relevant? Muhammad described the place to his companions, and Caliph Umar had a Mosque built there after the place was identified.

It is built on the site of the second temple of Solomon which was destroyed in 67 CE by the Roman Army; by the way, a fragment of the temple survives to this day, which is known as the wailing wall. Therefore, it is quite legitimate to claim that the Moslems who built the Al Asqa Mosque 8 centuries or more later hijacked the site from its Hebrew owners.

Seeing as how there was no building there, that's kind of a stretch. After all, the 8 centuries you claim (it was more like 6), it would certainly be legitimate to claim that the Hebrew owners had abandoned the site. And even that isn't really relevant to the argument, as the entire line or reasoning is retarded. I mean really, to claim that the site isn't holy when hundreds of books have been written regarding the site's holiness over the past thousand years by people who are considered authorities on Islamic law by Muslims, and the crusades were fought over them. Saying "the site isn't really holy to Muslims" is pretty fucking stupid in light of that.

Posted by Sajid | August 29, 2007 6:45 PM

Re SLC's comment "Therefore, it is quite legitimate to claim that the Moslems who built the Al Asqa Mosque 8 centuries or more later hijacked the site from its Hebrew owners."
-------
On BURIED, long abandoned, dirt-covered RUINS??
Better check under your house's foundations and make sure there are no Indian arrowheads before you push that argument, SLC.

Meanwhile, I guess we have to give London back to the Italians. And Greece gets Naples.

Posted by Don Williams | August 29, 2007 7:34 PM

Re SLC's comment "According to the teachings of the Roman Catholic and many Protestent Churches, Judaism is subsumed in Christianity. Obviously, Christians and Muslims can't both be right."
------
Why not? And what are your qualifications to decide?

Posted by Don Williams | August 29, 2007 7:37 PM

That the Israelis would agree to an administrative role in the West Bank/Gaza and then use that role as an excuse to build homes in preparation for future annexation is reprehensible.

However, the notion that giving up the West Bank would get Hamas to hold hands with the Israelis is naive.

"Right of Return" seems to be the most important of the Palestinian demands to Palestinians. Since "Right of Return" would be a de facto end of the Jewish state (with possible implementation of Sharia and almost certain Jewish dhimmitude), it follows that the Palestinians are interested in power--not land or peace.

Hopefully the Palestinians give up that foolish, fetishist dream of Jewish subjugation and Israel gives up its illegal settlements (all are illegal). I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by Steve W | August 29, 2007 7:44 PM

RE Juan's comment "Building the Aqsa Mosque on Judaism's holiest site and writing that line on it denying a fundamental precept of Christian theology suggest that the Caliph may have chosen that site for the Mosque out of spite, to stick to the two older religions. "
--------
Yes. And to wait for 600 years --after the death of Jesus and the Jewish Diaspora -- before exercising that spite especially shows a low animal cunning.

Speaking of "sticking it to a religion", was that mob calling upon Pontius Pilate to crucify a gentle Jew largely composed of these "Islamofascists"?? Just trying to sort out the timelines here.

Posted by Don Williams | August 29, 2007 8:31 PM

Re Don Williams

"On BURIED, long abandoned, dirt-covered RUINS??
Better check under your house's foundations and make sure there are no Indian arrowheads before you push that argument, SLC."

The same applies to Mr. Williams. If Mr. Williams thinks that the Palestinians in refugee camps are entitled to resettle in Israel, then Native Americans are entitled to resettle on the land on which my house sits and the land on which Mr. Williams' house sits. I suspect that Mr. Williams will agree to return his land to Native Americans along about the time that he sees the back of his own ear.

"Speaking of "sticking it to a religion", was that mob calling upon Pontius Pilate to crucify a gentle Jew largely composed of these
"Islamofascists"?? Just trying to sort out the timelines here.

Would Mr. Williams kindly inform us as to what percentage of the crowd were Jews and what percentage were Arabs. After all, Barabbas was an Arab and it is highly likely that many if not most of the crowd consisted of his followers.

"Re SLC's comment "According to the teachings of the Roman Catholic and many Protestent Churches, Judaism is subsumed in Christianity. Obviously, Christians and Muslims can't both be right."
------
Why not? And what are your qualifications to decide?"

Mr. Williams makes a good point here. I stated it badly. I should have said that since the Quran is rejected by all the Christian Churches, as well as are the teachings of Mohammed, and the divinity of Joshua of Nazareth is rejected by Islam, the two religions are therefore incompatible with each other. Therefore only one of them can be right (in fact, they might well both be wrong; as an atheist, that is my position, and yes Mr. Williams, Judaism is also wrong) and the other has then falsely claimed that Judaism has been subsumed by their version of religion since by definition it is not the true faith.

Re Steve

Mr. Steve has stated what I have been claiming for a long time on this blog, namely that the sticking point between Palestinians and Israelis is the demand by the former of resettlement of Palestinians living in refugee camps in the land allocated to the latter. If this demand were dropped (I am afraid that this will happen along about the time that the shrimps learn to whistle), I suspect the the issue of the settlements could be solved.

Posted by SLC | August 29, 2007 11:17 PM

"it would certainly be legitimate to claim that the Hebrew owners had abandoned the site."

They didn't abandon it, they were conquered. Just as the Arabs were by Israel in 1967, though Moshe Dayan was kind enough to let Muslims worship at the Aksa Mosque and let the Muslim Wakf continue to administer it. A far cry from the treatment Jews got when the Temple Mount was under Jordanian occupation, and the Arabs denied Jews access to their holiest site and ripped Jewish tombstones out of ancient cemeteries to pave roads.

"And to wait for 600 years --after the death of Jesus and the Jewish Diaspora -- before exercising that spite especially shows a low animal cunning."

I don't know if it demonstrates "a low animal cunning", though it does demonstrate a slow pace of development, considering that Arabs had been worshiping idols up until this point -- six hundred years after the dawn of Christianity, and two thousand years after the first Jew turned away from idols. If Islam considers Moses and Jesus to be prophets, why did Arabs ignore them both for so many centuries?

"was that mob calling upon Pontius Pilate to crucify a gentle Jew largely composed of these
"Islamofascists"?

Those must have Palestinian Arabs, at least according to most Palestinian "scholars" who deny that Jews have any historical ties to Israel (some even deny the Temples ever existed). Can't have it both ways: Either they Jews were their first, or the Arabs killed Jesus. Choose your poison.

Posted by Juan | August 30, 2007 1:43 AM

If Islam considers Moses and Jesus to be prophets, why did Arabs ignore them both for so many centuries?

Because the Arabs during those times were NOT Muslim?

Posted by Sajid | August 30, 2007 12:22 PM