Posted by: theoptimisticconservative | September 15, 2011

The Palestinian statehood circus: Rage, rage against the dying of the light

The rage

Today, 15 September, kicks off an 8-day period in which socialists, radical leftists, Islamists, and Palestinian activists will rail at a world that is disappearing.  The schedule includes the following:

15 September:  Rallies for Palestine in New York and other cities in the US and Europe

16 September:  Rally in Los Angeles to protest the US plan to veto the Palestinian statehood bid

17 September:  Day of Rage for the radical left, with protests in major cities and the 50 state capitals, plus an “occupation” of Wall Street

22 September:  Durban III conference to promote hysterical anti-Semitism at UN headquarters in New York (the US will not attend the conference, but it’s being held on our soil)

22 September:  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad address to the UN

23 September:  Palestinian delegation calls for a UN vote on Palestinian statehood

Most readers are aware of the issues surrounding the Palestinian statehood vote.  Besides there being, at present, no valid basis for the creation of a state – the leadership is divided, the elected leaders in Gaza and the West Bank have both stayed on after their terms ended with no new elections, the prospective state has no border and no agreements with its neighbors – there are the matters of persistent terrorism from Gaza, and the breach of the Oslo Accords represented by a unilateral statehood bid.  The US has excellent reasons for opposing the untimely call for a vote.

The Palestinian Authority vows it will request the vote anyway, in spite of intense US pressure to refrain.  If it happens, the call for a vote will, of course, be an embarrassment to US diplomacy.  But the statehood bid is untimely for a more important reason.  It is behind the times, out of step with the disintegration of the old 20th-century paradigm:  the narrative of political transformation that set “new statehood” in the context of the Western order.

According to that narrative, new statehood was two things at once:  it was a process of giving deserving peoples a place in the international order, but it was also seen by many on the left as a blow against the order – much like the community organizer’s practice of ensuring that plenty of irresponsible people are awarded the responsibility of the vote, and that they use it.

The quantity assumed to be constant in this narrative was the order itself.  The order was to be both railed at and battened on.  In some hazy future it might be “triumphed over,” but for the time being, there was no concrete plan – no Lenin-like competing idea for organization and governance – to supersede it.  Lenin’s idea collapsed from both the sword and its own cancerous inhumanity; it was discredited early on, and the world’s organized malcontents realized that, however emotionally satisfying Leninism was, their own aspirations needed the Western order to give them shape and meaning.  For careers of resentment and negativism to be sustainable, there has to be a large population of the productive and positive.

Under that paradigm, it made sense for malcontents to raid, harangue, and guilt-trip the productive, without ever producing an organized, sustainable result of their own.  In an analogy to the Western left’s posture, the hit-and-run guerrilla model of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas was the face of Islamism in the context of the 20th-century narrative.  Radicals were antagonists, not protagonists.  When radicals got in charge of a nation, as in North Korea or Cuba, Iran or Afghanistan, they were weird outliers; nobody wanted to be them. There was no viable, compelling model of either socialist utopia or Islamist statehood.

The new paradigm

The old paradigm is crumbling, however.  The principal factor in that is the squishy geopolitical profile of the United States.  It’s not just that the West is flailing and in debt over its head; it’s that there is today a rapidly declining expectation of order-keeping pushback from it.  That changes geopolitical and security assumptions for everyone.  It paves the way for a competing model of organization to arise.  And, inconveniently for the aspirants to Palestinian statehood, the competing model that is emerging is that of state Islamism.

Iran has given state Islamism a bad reputation, but Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Turkey is – inch by inch – giving it a better one.  For the Arab Spring nations, it is increasingly likely that state Islamism in some form will be the organizing principle of their futures.  Islamism – political Islam – is making the shift right now between its old focus on a guerrilla and community-organizing profile against the West, and a new focus on gaining the tools and stature of state power.  Al Qaeda – the perpetual antagonist – is out; state Islamism – the seat of the protagonist – is in.

This changes the whole context of Palestinian statehood, and not just for Palestinians or Muslims but for everyone in the Eastern hemisphere.  According to the 20th-century narrative, Palestinian statehood was a blow against the Western order, a means of transforming it, and a way of giving “Palestine” a place in it.  Under the new narrative – still tentative, still emerging – there is a strong probability that Palestinian statehood will be an emblem of victory for state Islamism.  Regardless of whether it is intended so or not, circumstances have outrun the politics of the old paradigm.

Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood are competitors with Erdogan for leadership in the state-Islamism sweepstakes.  There is no semblance of unity among Muslims, or even among Middle Easterners, in this regard, and hence no one appointed to be the main patron of Palestinian statehood and carry it as a victory banner.  Unless someone is appointed to that role, a state of Palestine is likely to make the state of flux in the Middle East more intense and urgent.

Russians, Greeks, and the other peoples of Southeastern Europe see this much more clearly than Americans or West Europeans do.  Their security is directly affected by every new assumption of power, leadership, or influence in the Middle East.  They have national memories of life with the Ottoman Empire as a neighbor.  Whatever their sentiments were back in 1989, when many of them, secure within the US-dominated order, officially endorsed Palestinian statehood, they are not anxious today to see political victories for state Islamism (or, in a number of their cases, for nationalist insurgencies, of which these third-party nations have their share).

Reluctance for the transition?

What all this means is that quite a few of the nations in the UN – even Arab nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan; even nations that will vote for the unilateral Palestinian statehood initiative – are content to have the US to use our Security Council veto.  They’re not necessarily ready for everything to change.  With the Palestinian statehood question carrying new freight, and no clarity on who will benefit from it and whose ox it will most effectively gore, they may well prefer that the old paradigm linger just a bit longer.  The muted and distracted diplomatic posture of these nations on the Palestinian statehood initiative is a quiet testament to their ambivalence about it in a changing world.

Happily for them, it is the US that will take the heat.  Meanwhile, a small vignette in this over-stimulated drama is uniquely telling.  It hinges on the theme of activists that there is a one-sided slaughter of Palestinian children by the tanks and warplanes of a cruel, occupying state of Israel.

New meets old

In the US this month, activists are seeking to present the theme at the Museum of Children’s Art (MOCHA) in Oakland, as a rebuke to the complacent citizens of a monolithic West.  An anti-Israel group is sponsoring an exhibit of art supposedly executed by Palestinian children between the ages of 9 and 11 (see here as well).  MOCHA recently decided not to host the exhibit because of its political content, but the exhibit’s sponsors have expressed determination to get it on display “either inside or outside of MOCHA” (their emphasis) by their target date of 24 September.

Contrast this old-paradigm use of the tanks-and-planes theme with the new-paradigm use of it in Gaza earlier this week.  While Turkey’s Erdogan was making a high-profile visit to Egypt, Gazan children were arranged around a monument to the 2010 flotilla to invite Erdogan to visit Gaza.  Their young spokesman emitted this statement:

Speaking on behalf of the children, a Palestinian child Ahmed Fahri said that Israeli soldiers kept killing children of Gaza by their tanks and planes, adding that only one person [i.e., Erdogan] stood against it.

Fahri said that Erdogan was defending the children of Gaza, and they loved Erdogan very much, thus, schools, shops and children were named after Erdogan.

Erdogan has competitors; he will not find a path to regional or Islamist leadership without obstacles.  He may not be the one who achieves it.  His brand of state Islamism is focused less on sharia radicalism and more on traditional geopolitics and a neo-Ottoman idea.  But for now, he is riding the crest of the new paradigm – and we may be about to see that the old paradigm is not the one that “makes things happen” anymore..

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at Hot Air’s Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, and The Weekly Standard online.


  1. I guess that there are indeed problems with a Palestinian state…..

    Of course, there is the idea that a Palestinian state has as at least as much

    “valid basis for the creation” as the creation of Israel did.

    That which we don’t like, opticon, is not non-existent.

    The Palestinians were offered their state by the UN and I doubt that the UN doesn’t regard the offer as still open.

    • Fuster:

      Except for one minor detail: There once was a State of Israel pretty much in that same area. There has never been a State of Palestine anywhere. Palestine was a region not a country, not a state or not anything more than a desolate, worthless piece of land that the Iraelis took over and made into something quite valuable and quite productive.

      I would not consider a state of “never was” as a “valid” basis for anything of the sort.

      Even the Arabs never recognized Palestine as a state and the Arabs never allowed the Palestinians to organize as a separate and independent government when they controlled the region.

      That htis issue is now useful to them and allows them to stirr the pot for political purposes is obvious. That they now endorse the idea of a Palestinian state because that brand new, never before existed nation would take most if not all of its territory from critical, strategic land that is now Israel’s is also obvious.

      It’s easy to give up land that is no longer yours.

      Also, and this is history not opinion, the Arab states that are now endorsing the creation of a new Palestinian state, were extremely hard and heavy handed with the “Palestinians” when they were their subjects and they owned the territory.

      On the other hand, I agree, only partially, mind you, with some of what you are saying. The arbitrary creation of the modern day nation of Israel was an arrogant impossition by the League of Nations after WW II. That body of disfunctionality, in fact, gave up territory that was not their’s to give up. Again, it’s easy to give up land that does not belong to you. But, that goes to show you what a disturbingly arrogant organization that was and still is under their new monicker The United Nations. And, to begin with, we both know that, attractive as the name might be, there is nothing “united” about that cesspool. But, hey, life has a sense of humor; they were the ones that made theat particular bed so it’s only fair that now they get to lie in it.

      Somebody will have to run roughshod over Israel to get this single piece of arrogance actually executed if it ever passes.

      Hmmm…maybe THAT very thing is what has been predicted…?

  2. A question for Opticon (I do like most of her ideas and opinions):

    Is the emergence of the Islamic state, the new paradigm, the fault of a complacent, fat and lazy socialized West or is that growth and emergence due to the actual, measurable worth of that new order?

    And, as a follow up observation, I will add this:

    I can’t help but noticing the similarities between the new Islamic order that you mention and allude to and the socialists tactics of the past few decades. At some point, they both have come to realize that it is much better to take things over slowly and carefully than by brute force. Sudden, violent moves tend to scare the living daylights out of people and they end up mobilizing against the perpetrators. But, to achieve that tactical goal of a more seemingly peaceful and slower transition, they must first come to understand and eventually join whatever system governs the area in order to use it ruthlessly and relentlessly to forward, not the very system that they surreptitiously invaded, but the sytem that they hope to create and end up with.

    Your views, Opticon, will be appreciated.

  3. OK, I’m new at this and I always forget. I’m pushing the button for notices of follow-up comments on this subject.

    Opticon, please deduct one post from the response scoreboard since this one is purely administrative 🙂

  4. don’t really see how “there never was” means there is no valid basis for one coming into being.

    there never was ….. anything ……until there was.

    is everything without validity?

  5. fuster: As usual you are using a circular argument that leads nowhere. You said that the palestinians (descriptive term denoting an area of origin) had “AS MUCH VALID REASONS” for being recognized as a country/state as Israel had or has. That is simply not true and I answered that particular piece of disinformation.

    If you are now changing your argument to this new smoke screen then say so and we’ll discuss your newest tidbit of wisdom. But, be aware that, in the end, whatever “right” you claim for the Palestinians is also equally applicable to the Israelis and, then, yet again, there will remain the historic fact that the area occupied now by Israel was once their country and that the palestinians cannot make the same claim for themselves. Therefore, there is no such thing as “as much reason for…” or any complete equivalency as long as that fact remains in place.

    As for your question/statement about “everything being without validity”. No. I guess not. Not everything. Only your latest “argument” is without validity.

    • my equation, rafa, is based on the offer made by the UN for the creation of two new states. …. saying that Israel once existed, a couple thousand years ago, and Palestine never did isn’t much of a refutation.

      something two thousand years dead hasn’t more of a claim to life than a newborn.

  6. All posts count, Rafa. In fact, feel free to type LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL and post that, as many times as you’d like. Such posts will go to the spam queue, but I’ll get to them eventually, and if they’re from you, they’ll be approved. 🙂

    I agree with you that there are parallels between state Islamism and state Marxism. The idea of using the power of the state to recreate humanity — no matter how many freedoms, body parts, or whole persons have to go — is the corporate pathology of our age. Every state where the people are NOT being oppressed and reformed by their government looks to the modern Bolshevik like Napoleon’s proverbial “crown lying in the gutter.”

    We haven’t had true Bolsheviks on the global stage since the end of the Cold War. We’ve had community organizers: the perpetual malcontents who throw frequent tantrums and try to establish codependencies of resentment and guilt. But state Islamists have the prospect of becoming a new set of Bolsheviks.

    The difference between them and the Bolsheviks is that they have not made preparing for state power a “core competency” of their ideological effort, to the extent Bolsheviks did. Islamism comes from a different cultural and ideological background; its main ideological tie with successful state power is the historical Ottoman Empire.

    But I think that’s changing. And yes, the “rise” of Islamism is relative. If the West had not sunk, for various reasons, since the end of the Cold War, Islamism would have little chance of appearing to “rise.”

  7. Trying to play at your game, here is my own circular argument:

    Since you attempt to equate something two thousand years DEAD to a newborn as far as claim to life, then to you a newborn is equal, as far as claim to life, as a long dead person?

    By the way, I fully understand that the previous paragraph had little or nothing to do with what we were discussing. I would call that a dodge and I only used it to illustrate something…perhaps only to myself…

    Now, then. However insignificant it might be to you, and you don’t get to be the qualitative or quantitative judge of this for others, I might add, it is still something that the Israelis can rightfully claim but the palestinians can’t.

    Once more (I’ll type slowly) that gives the Israelis a leaning post that, inconvinient as it may be to some, makes them, the Israelis, owners of one more point of contention and, your words, not mine, of “validity” than the palestinians. And that, fuster, remains my answer to your previous assertion.

    • rafa, the “validity” thing isn’t from me, it’s from the opticon’s assertion of “no valid basis for the creation…”

      and while I agree that it’s reasonable to see the ancient israel as a point in favor of the modern one…….it stills doesn’t mean that there aren’t reasonable points arguing for a Palestinian state.

      the land was partitioned precisely because there two reasonable claims for sovereignty by two groups

      the opticon’s argument that present conditions make the creation of a Palestinian state a bad idea can’t be taken all the way to saying that’s the Palestinians don’t have a valid claim to a state.

      I’m not much of a fan of the past actions and attitudes of the Pals , but they exist despite my disfavor and I can’t pretend otherwise.

  8. Then let’s do this…

    Take the land from Jordan, Lebanon and Syria and maybe a tad of all that valuable Egyptian desert too. Take as much as you want from the palestinian “brothers” that are now standing up for them and supporting a palestinian state. Go ahead. Let the palestinians get on with it from there if a land of their own is all they want.

    But, remember, these are the same Arabs that wouldn’t give the palestinians the time of day before the advent of Israel. Have them give the palis their desert. After all, that is where the palestinians come from. Let’s see if they can make a productive farm out of a desert, since they are so eager to have a little place to call their own. But, believe me, I wouldn’t bet a dollar against one red cent that they’ll be able to grow one single pomegranate tree because they’ve lived there for centuries and they couldn’t make it work before.

    Nah. I’m just blowing steam. This whole palestinian issue is a political con job. Like everything else that comes out of that region of the world. And the poor saps from the West are falling for it because they just can’t wait to show everybody how inclusive and fair they are.

    Makes me wanna barf from the sheer silliness of it all.

    • the Palestinians want to live on the land that they own (and they still own some of it) just as the Jews wanted to live on the land that they once owned.

      the whole of Israel/Palestine isn’t worth a fraction of the trouble it produces and the attention it commands.

      • Yes, they probably want that. What makes you think that’s anywhere near all they want?

        Who will convince the Arabs, the Muslims and the leftists to stop directing our attention there so singlemindedly?

  9. The laugh is that the Opticon’s favourite foreign charity, Israel, more closely fits the bill under the silly criteria she invents (without any basis in fact or law, and bolstered only, as she is wont, by name-calling people she hates) for denying the manifest right of the Palestinians to national self-determination. Israel, born out of a vicious terror campaign, was imposed – and with putative borders set without negotiation, and without reference to, or consultation with, the majority of the inhabitants of the Palestine Mandate. Israel is also a socialist state (more so when it was imposed by the UN than now) with a socialist national health service, welfare, and socialist public housing (for the cdominant tribe only), effectively subsidized by the long-suffering US tax-payer.

    I am interested as to how we can rationalize our support for democracy, freedom, and self-determination for everyone in the Arab world except the Palestinians, and why, if our actual stated policy is for a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine, we are threatening to veto a resolution that is merely a step (and completely without prejudice to final borders) towards that end.

    I wonder at what is actually behind the attempts by the Israeli right and its weirdo US supporters (other than campaign money and a religious fanaticism that also believes unconverted Jews go to hell) for lining up against the route towards national self-determination of a people?

    I suspect that the real reason is that a successful resolution of the UN general Assembly will give Palestinians access to some of the legal means of protecting their rights, lives, and property – something only their Jewish neighbours have at the moment. This campaign of obstruction is an ugly (and deeply repulsive to core American values) attempt to prevent Palestinian access to rule of law by extremists whose ultimate objective is the politicide of Palestinian Nation and the maintenance of the Arab people as helots without legal protection while their land and homes are stolen from under them.

  10. If I thought that Palestinian statehood would make it more likely that Israel would treat terrorist attacks from Palestinian territory as acts of war–that is, respond in full force without worrying about the effect on negotiations–and put an end to US and Israeli aid to and training of, Palestinian “security” forces, I might look favorably on a declaration of statehood. The “peace process” and Oslo Accords are, obviously, long dead, and it’s wrong to keep fantasizing that they will be resurrected. A Palestinian state might force the Palestinians to confront reality, a life without being a ward of the UN and cause celebre of the “interrnational community.” Israel, could ideally, respond with a unilateral drawing of boundaries of its own. Part of the “new paradigm” will certainly be every people and every state looking out for itself, and cobbling together whatever alliance it can for as long as it can, with the US as general enforcer rapidly receding from the scene. My main objection is that recognizing the legitimacy of the UN to confer statehood at this point confers upon it the legitimacy to deal with a lot of other issues, and htere’s no reason to assume that it won’t keep the refugee issue and God knows what else in play along with Palestinian statehood. So, why not be really bold, Palestinians: declare statehood on your own, establish the actual material prerequisites of a state, start accepting diplomats and sending out your own, take responsibility for your borders (whatever borders you are able to defend and control), see if you can drive the Israelis out from whatever territory they control which you consider yours, etc., and see how it goes? So, maybe I am looking rather favorably on it after all, as long as it doesn’t require my endorsement or any external guarantees–if we’re going to have a new paradigm, let’s get it moving already. Maybe it will add a strong dose of reality to the Israelis, Americans and everyone else fantasizing about “peace” all these years.

  11. Paulite, in answer to your rant:

    OK…So, according to your logic (or lack thereof) we should also listen to a request by Mormons to secede from the Union and form their own country in, say, Utah.

    Again, following all that core American values stuff that you contrived to serve your own argument, we should also seriously consider a new country formed by the Mexican-American mandate in California. Oh, wait, that might be OK if they promise to stay in San Fransico and LA but leave the grape growing farms for the wine drinkers among us…

    No one is trying to prevent the rule of law for the Palestinians. They have laws in Israel and these apply to palestinians as well. It is the palestinians that are the ones who would circumvent those laws and would prevent their application. In fact, they do that all the time.

    The difference between unconverted Jews that go to hell and unconverted Muslims that are sent there is that unconverted Jews die peacefully in their own beds while unconverted Muslims die from having their heads cut off or their school children blown all to smithereens or they die from a rocket attack while having dinner with their families at home. This is a major difference in my book, especially when it comes to adhering to the rule of law and core American values that you now claim just to suit yourself.

    There is no palestinian manifest rights, Palestine mandate or Palestinian nation. Actually, there never was. The Arabs wouldn’t have any of that.

    The manifest rights of the Palestinians is covered, as these things generally are, by wherever they happen to take residence. If they live in Jordan, they have the rights recognized by Jordan (which, I agree, might not be saying a lot). If they choose to live in Israel because it has now been made into an oasis, then they enjoy the rights recognized by Israel. That’s the way it is here and everywhere else in the world and every government says so, therefore, it must be as true, correct and right. Just like it is when they say, for instance, that there is no God but Allah and that Mohamed is his prophet.

    The so-called Palestine mandate was used as so much toilet paper by the rest of the Arab Muslim nations and has been for hundreds of years way before Israel ever came back into the picture (toilet paper is very hard to come by in the desert, I guess).

    And, as for the Palestinian nation…HA! Don’t make me laugh. There never was such a thing except in the minds of the disruptors and other New World Order people.

    But, I do grant you this point (albeit grudgingly, less you pick up too much speed from it): Israel IS indeed a socialist country. And, furthermore, Jews do seem to come into this world with a socialist gene. That might well explain why they vote so heavily Democrat.

    • ” And, furthermore, Jews do seem to come into this world with a socialist gene…”

      I guess that’s because it’s their world and they’re nice enough to share most all of it (except Jerusalem. don’t want any Muslims or Christians or other impious violators of the sabbath )

    • Indeed. They’ve had a huge supply side boom in the most adverse security conditions thanks in very large part to Bibi’s supply side reforms and now, when they have so many other things to worry about, are protesting by the hundreds of thousands for “Social Justice”.*

      And here the Jews horror at the thought of Rick Perry, Evangelical Climate Change “Denier” will induce them to vote in large numbers, for Rashid Khalledi’s protege.

      *To be fair, not only the Jews. The French are big union enthusiasts. Post WWII the Germans rejected most of the idiotic Kenysian nonsense their U.S. and British masters were proposing and their own Bismarkian legacy and had their income double and unemployment drop to virtually zero. Eine echt Witshaftswunder, if I do say so myself. Then they, too, opted for “Social Justice” and a reduced standard of living and dramatically higher unemployment (naturally) followed.

    • For someone who bandies about words such as “rant” you seem to have little real insight.

      The Mormons of Utah want to be part of the US. They also have equal rights under the laws of our country, and their persons and property are effectively protected under those laws. Most Palestinians would be delighted to forgo their national claims in return for equal legal status under the laws of their occupier. However, within the Occupied Territories only the settlers enjoy legal protection for their lives, property, and basic human rights. Israel has no intention of extending legal equality to the Arabs in the occupied territories. It seems determined to maintain the occupied non-Jews in a situation where their homes, farms, businesses, and water resources can be taken from them with legal impunity. If we offered our Mormons the same deal under the laws of the United States you can bet your bottom dollar that UTAH would be well on the road to secession. But we don’t. Mormans, no less than you or I, enjoy equal protection under the law and Constitution. This ideal which we call the “rule of law” is a fundamental core-value of our Constitution, and of Americans. Israel doesn’t share this core value.
      So, the question is, if Israel doesn’t want to give the occupied Arabs equal legal protection, and doesn’t want to allow them their own state, what does it want. The answer is rather obvious. It wants them maintained in an indefinite state of legal powerlessness while it gets on with the business of stealing the land, water, and economic future of the non-Jews in the Occupied Territories.
      Thankfully, most of our real allies in the Western World (the ones who don’t require an annual dole of $3billions to be our “friends”) have cottoned on to this, and will be voting for the UN resolution. These nations have also voted for similar resolutions in relation to Darfur, East Timor and elsewhere. The are not making an exception for Israel. I presume that our failure to live up to our core values is prompted more for domestic reasons (cowardice in the face of AIPAC and campaign contributions) rather than any particular love of Israel.
      You seem to have even less insight into theology. Your attempt to differentiate between the way the Allmighty regards Jews and Moslems will be of news to Him. Your views certainly don’t originate from either Christian or Jewish theology.

  12. Yep. Well said, Adam.

    • Adam’s little echo?

  13. Didn’t know Jerusalem was not shared. So I guess those photos of Easter pilgrimagesin Jerusalem to the Mount of Olives and those news stories of Muslim “worshippers” dropping stones from their mosque on Temple Mount onto Jews worshipping below at the Wall are photoshopped.

    For quite a while it was not shared. When the 1948 boundaries were in place, the Jewish quarter was ransacked, hundreds of synagogues, some dating back centuries, were destroyed, as well as Hadassah hospital. So now “East Jerusalem” is “traditionally Arab.”

    • you’re quite right about the 48 boundaries and the ugly actions in the part of Jerusalem that was under Jordanian control, but Jerusalem has been annexed into ownership solely by Israel which surely wasn’t part of the UN offer, Margo.

      since that annexation, Jerusalem has been “shared” less and less. the government has been discriminating against and pushing out people born and living in Jerusalem if they’re not Jews.

      lately, Jerusalem is filling up with ultra-orthodox Jews and some of those little fanatics have taken to rioting as part of their demand that Jerusalem be ruled in accordance with their understanding of Hebraic religion doctrine. unless the government decides to curb their enthusiasm, Jerusalem will become a place where the rights of Easter pilgrims, Muslims and secular Jews will count for little.

  14. Land that they own? That’s a red herring if I ever read one.

    The palestinians and anybody else that actually owns land is welcome to live there and keep within the laws that govern that particular space.

    Now, if they lost their rights and their land has been taken over because use of that land by other palestinians represents a clear and present danger to another nation (Tijuana comes to mind…) then it is the conditions of the land that dictate what happens there (East Berlin during the Soviet occupation comes to mind).

    The world is made up of nations that were formed by wars. Man is an eminently imperialist and warring animal who is bound to protect their own against foreign threats (Our South West, for some weird reason, does not really come to mind in this particular context). The Arab nations that decided to go to war against Israel and lost, augmented by their constant state of threat and violence which dominates the region, is enough of a motivator to expect, even demand that certain buffers be kept in place. Particularly if that buffer space was earned the hard way. And THAT, by the way, might well be the principal reason why the “poor, downtrodden” Palestinians are now wanting for somebody else to award them the lost real estate. After all, it’s tactically very valuable land.

    But, if the same situation existed here the “fairness” flute would be playing a totally different tune. Say Canada started lobbing missiles at the US or if Mexico started to openly threaten the US and they began a process of raids, bombings terrorism and rockets into our civilian populations. Do you think that the administration would just stand back and take it from Canada or, even worse, that they would give Arizona and South Texas back to good ole Mejico just because some Mexican politician or Aztlan zealot said that they wanted it back? No, I done zeenk so, Lucy…

    Of course, in that little make believe scenario I would hope that Obama had already been deposed and that we had a real President sitting in the Big Chair… (wink, wink)

    • —–“The palestinians and anybody else that actually owns land is welcome to live there and keep within the laws that govern that particular space.

      Now, if they lost their rights and their land has been taken over because use of that land by other palestinians represents a clear and present danger to another nation” —-

      I’m not sure that either one of us knows what you’re talking about there. The land and water rights of Palestinians are being violated often in the West Bank and not because of any violative actions of their own, but because of simple theft by settlers based on their own fundamentalist views and in violation of the skewed laws of the Israeli military occupation. (The abuse is also widespread and blatant in Jerusalem.)
      that’s not really all that welcoming.

  15. We are obliged for your insightful contribution.

    Your wisdom is profound and leaves me with a sense of outrage at the people who sent my father and uncle (alas, the latter never came home and lies on foreign field) to take back from Hitler and Imperial Japan the territory they had fairly won by right of conquest. Such a waste of American lives.

  16. Paul Lite:

    No. Adam’s big echo.

  17. Paul Lite:

    YES! Indeed. Particularly if you are referring to the vast territory in Europe that was then “awarded” to your communists after WWII. Was that not done as Uncle Joe’s right of conquest and was that not a tremendous irony, that we died to “free” Europe from one tyrant and ended up giving it to another?

    Oh…sorry. I forgot who I was writing to…

    My bad.

  18. “Thankfully, most of our real allies in the Western World (the ones who don’t require an annual dole of $3billions to be our “friends”)”

    Yeah, right…like the palestinians. They don’t get a cent from us.

    And the Arab world. They love us more than they love their 72 virgins there and they are our true and faithful friends.

    What are you drinking…?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: