If Palestinians Wanted Peace And Prosperity, They'd Already Have It
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • last year • 42 commentsBy: David Harsanyi (The Federalist)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In 2005, Palestinian Arabs were given autonomy over the Gaza Strip for the first time in their history. To make it happen, the Israeli government forcibly removed thousands of Israelis from the area. Without military protection, Jews would be murdered by Palestinians, who prefer their land Judenfrei.
As Jews were being evicted from their homes, some began to dismantle the farms and hothouses they'd built, reluctant to hand over years of hard work. In the name of peace, however, American Jewish donors purchased the 3,000 remaining greenhouses that stood over 1,000 acres for $14 million and gave it to the Palestinian Authority, gratis. A large portion of the donations were earmarked for "crucial equipment like computerized irrigation systems" and other modern farming systems for Palestinians.
As soon as the Jews were gone, mobs of Palestinians showed up and broke windows, stole irrigation hoses, water pumps, and everything else they could get their hands on, destroying everything they could, as "police" stood by and watched. This happened before Hamas came to power. Before any blockades.
By 2007, the unity government between the PLO and Hamas had fallen apart after the latter won a landslide election in 2006 and began defenestrating its political opponents. It was a warning. There has not been a real election in the West Bank since. And it's a good thing because Islamists would surely grab power there as they had in Gaza. Joe Biden likes to say that Hamas doesn't speak for Palestinians, but the ugly truth is that Hamas is a far better ambassador of the Palestinian people than the "moderate" Fatah party, which we prop up with billions of dollars.
I thought about all this when reading Sen. Rand Paul's hopelessly naive piece in The Federalist today. Paul contends that peace between Israel and Arabs is contingent on promised "prosperity" for Palestinians. He mentions the word "prosperity" eight times, in fact, contending that "non-Hamas Palestinians must hear a message of hope of what could come if they renounced violence." The libertarian senator then unsheathes this pollyannaish suggestion: "[I]nstead of dropping leaflets to a million Palestinians to flee or be bombed, perhaps we might consider leaflets announcing the prosperity and benefits if they choose a government that recognizes Israel and renounces violence."
Palestinians have been hearing this message nonstop since 1948 — if not since the 1920s. Many of the Arabs who immigrated to British Palestine from Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere were lured by the promise of the "prosperity" that was being created by Jewish newcomers. Once there, fueled by the propaganda and lies of their leaders, they created an intractable situation. Before there were any "open-aired prisons" or "occupied territories," there was terrorism and massacres of Jews. And, still, when offered a state in 1948, with the promise of self-determination and prosperity, they rejected it and tried to annihilate the region's Jews.
Paul's belief that Palestinians are itching for "prosperity" is reminiscent of the neocons' belief that the Islamic world was longing for Western-style "democracy." No doubt, many innocent civilians are interested in peace and safety. But for most, the frame of thinking about the world and the logic employed to make sense of it are on a different wavelength. If they weren't, Palestinians would have built a prosperous nation a long time ago. They had every chance to do it.
Palestinian statehood was on the table after the 1967 and 1973 wars, and in the early 1990s and the early 2000s, and a bunch of times in between. It was offered in exchange for the recognition of Israel and the renouncement of violence. Just as it didn't happen then, it can't happen now. No Palestinian leader can agree to a deal on statehood because they would surely be deposed and murdered. The Palestinians' self-destructive embrace of the "right to return" (an idea tied to the historical myth of "Nakba") and/or Islamist fundamentalism makes peace virtually impossible.
But what's stopped the Arabs of Gaza or the "West Bank" from achieving prosperity? There are hundreds of stateless minorities in the world. Very few turn to violence. Many thrive. The Jews and Arabs lived in similarly desolate places before the partition, but in the decades since, Israel's GDP per capita has risen to be on par with South Korea, Spain, and France. Jordan is on par with El Salvador, Namibia. Egypt is on par with Mongolia and Gabon. Is that also the fault of Zionists?
Indeed, like any free nation, Israel makes mistakes, but the idea that it stands in the way of Palestinian success due to bigotry or colonialist intentions or a racial grudge is a paranoiac conspiracy spread by Middle East leaders and Western intellectuals. They would like nothing more than a peaceful neighbor.
Every Israeli restriction on Gazans has been implemented as a reaction to violence by Gazans. When you send Gaza concrete, they don't build skyscrapers, they build tunnels and military bases under hospitals. They tear down streetlight poles and dig up water pipes to make casements for rockets. Tens of thousands of them. When you allow shipments of necessities, they smuggle in explosives and weapons from Iran.
Gazans are unwilling to build the basic infrastructure necessary for themselves despite receiving hundreds of millions in aid. Israel can only cut power off in Gaza because Israeli power companies provide that electricity (often for free.) The same goes for clean water. Gaza water comes through pipelines from Israeli desalination plants. The notion that Israel is engaged in "genocide," as you can see, is preposterous in every conceivable way.
Perhaps the only way to implement hope and "prosperity" for the Palestinians is to tighten the occupation of Gaza and create basic civic institutions that make it possible. If, as many Democrats claim, Hamas is not the true agent of the Palestinian people then Israel would be liberating them from a violent cult. But, of course, this would be met with condemnation from the world — not to mention it would mean Israel putting its own citizens' lives in danger.
Rather, Israel is asked to create an independent state for a people who are incapable of living in peace with Jews, or anyone else. A Gazan nation would be a place where Iran sends deadlier missiles and, one day, nuclear weapons. At this point, acquiescing to any independent Palestinian state would be suicide for the Jewish state. No responsible nation would do it. And a leaflet isn't going to change anything.
Tags
Who is online
339 visitors
Israel has brought democracy and civilization to the middle east.
It hasn't rubbed off on the Palestinians.
Israel has brought democracy to Israel.
No John, those idiotic failed states and groups surrounding Israel can all see the democracy that is in their midst.
Don't bother trying to twist what I say. If those thugs in Palestine can't understand how much better Israel is to the PLO and Hamas, they are destined to continue their dreadful existence.
Arabs make up 20% of the population.
And since Israeli Arabs are citizens of Israel (and can vote, have representatives in the Israeli Parliament, have the right to choose to opt out of military service, etc.) you are correct-- Israel has indeed brought democracy to Israel!
Question for ya John:
Is the United states a democracy?
Was it a democracy when Trump was president?
This kind of thinking is an obstacle to ever achieving peace...
What kind of thinking do you mean? How should peace be achieved in the region? Are you saying that Israel has kept the poor Palestinians under their thumb all this time. Did you even read the article?
Well if that's the case---what type of thinking would make peace possible?
LIE.
Why should anyone trust an article that has such an obvious lie in the first few paragraphs ?
It's a Federalist article again. Lies are to be expected.
What lies would that be Ozzy?
Are you not able to read the comment I originally replied to?
So you cannot come up with any.
You mean the one that quoted a partial sentence then proceeded to run with nonsense?
Guys, get back to the topic. Only warning.
"By 2007, the unity government between the PLO and Hamas had fallen apart after the latter won a landslide election in 2006 and began defenestrating its political opponents."
The above is what the article said, which is the truth. How can you call it a lie?
Hamas did not win a by a landslide. Thats how.
They won 74 seats. Fatah, who finished second, won 45.
that’s counts as a landslide.
[deleted]
If you dont get a majority of the votes (Hamas) and only win the plurality by 3 percent, you didnt win a landslide, nor did Hamas.
They won John, and they did it while creating a charter calling for the destruction of Israel.
That is your Palestinians, John.
You’re the one posting a lie. You’re responding to a sentence fragment, which distorts the meaning. The article doesn’t say that Hamas fell apart. It says,
That’s all true.
The fact is the PLO - long, the primary anti-Israel terrorist organization - deigned to try and live in peace with Israel. For that, they were rejected by Hamas and a violent conflict between the two erupted in 2007. That is: any cooperative relationship between the PLO (now known as Fatah) and Hamas is what fell apart. In no way, is this article trying to say that Hamas, itself, fell apart.
[deleted]
Thank you SO MUCH for posting that article. It doesn't go far enough. It doesn't relate that the Palestinians walked away from the table refusing to negotiate when they were offered 95% of their demands. Then they walked away from the table without negotiating when they were offered 97% of their demands. They don't want to share the lands with Israel. They won't settle for anything less than "From the river to the sea." They want every Jew in Israel dead or gone. The Koran tells them to seek out and kill the Jews who are hiding behind stones and trees. Read it yourself. It is ingrained. Good luck trying to find the Al Aqsa mosque mentioned in the Koran, but after all, its one of the three holy Islamic sites is it not?
Now that I see who is supporting and in agreement with the article above, the one the liberals are trying to disparage because the author actually used the word "landslide" instead of "majority", I have not been pushed, but have CHOSEN to side with those who have voted up this article. IMO, except for perhaps that one word, I KNOW that article is absolutely correct. I have been to Israel more than once. I've even been to the West Bank. For a while I was the Director of Development of the Canadian Friends of Laniado Hospital raising hundreds of thousands of dollars to support that little moderate Orthodox hospital in Netanya which I visited and spoke with the friendly Palestinian doctors and nurses who are rightly completely trusted with total administrative control of that hospital and its patients when the Jewish administration, doctors, nurses, pharmacists and all other Jewish staff are absent during the High Holidays. Because of that experience I'm fully aware that there are also many good Palestinians, not just terrorists.
Who am I? I'm a person who on his first trip to Israel could not hold back his tears when the airplane was landing in Tel Aviv while the song Yarushalayim Shel Zahav (Jerusalem of Gold) was played for the passengers. I'm the person who wanted to get on my hands and knees and kiss the ground when I stepped onto the tarmac with the feeling that I was finally "home" but was too embarrassed to do so. I'm the one who saw the smoke rise from the bus station in Jerusalem when the hotel I was in trembled from the bombing of a bus by the Palestinians, the Palestinian bomb slaughtering innocent Israeli women and children, my first taste of actually being a witness to Palestinian terrorism. How many on this site have actually witnessed Palestinian terrorism?
I am a Canadian, a loyal Canadian. I am not loyal to any other of the 17 or so nations that during my lifetime I have visited or even live in now, but because I don't do as the Romans don't do when I'm there I've always been welcome (except maybe not by the West Bank), but notwithstanding all of that, I love Israel and I always will.
In today's world if the Palestinians think that they can eliminate the Jews and Israel's population of 9 million and interesting enough a few million Arab Jews who choose Israel and prosperity, even with the trials they face within Israel they are out of their minds. Also those that are chanting ''From the river to the sea'' what do they mean as far as I can tell they mean the elimination of Israel and Jews. That is also a more nutty thought process.
If Israel thinks that it can destroy Hamas/Hezbollah et al and the Palestinians they too are living in a dream world or if they think they can occupy the West Bank and Gaza for the next thousand years that too is plain nuts.
IMO, even though it was been declared dead by some the two-state solution is the only one that has any chance at all of ending a war that will not be ended by any measures being used today.
In 1948 with the birth of Israel over 700,000 Palestinians were driven from Palestine, and some of these people are still living in refugee camps. Thousands more were killed by Israeli terrorists. this is a recurring song on the Palestinian hit parade. On the other side over 700,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries since 1948 and thousands more were killed by Palestinian terrorists. Throw in a couple of wars and we are up to date.
In the early 2000s, the Saudis came up with a plan that took the two-state solution as the basis and SA has more pull in the ME than any other country with the GCC was to supply monetary support and oversight. IMO, that is what just might work, but both the Palestinians and Jews will have to agree to it and help it come to fruition. If not we will be talking about more wars in the ME for the century, in other words, the status quo will be war/terrorism/death.
In Buzz's comment above he stated his love for Israel and his passion and experience of being in Israel and it certainly comes from the heart.
I too have an investment in the ME, a very personal and deep one that has driven me in more than one direction over the years. Now, I want to see peace between Jews and Palestinians to invest their time and effort in making their countries better for the people instead of arms and killing. Perhaps that is a foolish dream but at my age I'm allowed that privilege. I paid the price for the privilege.
Wassa Inaabidaa
(we look in all directions) Which both Israel and Palestine have to do.
The truth about their leaving their homes can't be told by the Palestinians - it doesn't fit their version of the "Nakba". The real story, Kavika, is that when Partition happened the surrounding Arab nations were preparing to attack Israel to drive the Jews into the sea, they WARNED the Arab residents to flee telling them they would be able to return when the Jews were gone, and most did flee. The problem was that the surrounding nations did NOT succeed, and the fact that there are STILL 2nd and 3rd and possibly 4th generations of Palestinian refugees, a situation absolutely unbelievable in our world, only indicates that the UN has with its special branch of UNRWA provided an endless privilege that no other refugees in the world have ever enjoyed, they are MAINTAINED with EVERYONE'S dollars as refugees to be a knife permanently sticking into Israel's flanks.
Not something that Kavika wishes to reveal, but I am aware of it and I can tell you it is absolutely true - it was and is a price that will never stop having to be paid.
That's true.
A refugee is someone who's left their homeland (for whatever reason) and is no longer living there.
A refugee is not someone whose parents left their country (i.e. descendants of refugees are not considered to be refugees just because their parents were).
Those who did not flee were expelled by the Jewish, Buzz.
That is an odd expression.
Then say so. Some did not voluntarily flee as warned by the invaders to do, and those may have been "driven out". Your comment indicates that they were all "driven out" by the Israelis, you know, the "Jewish".
Some as you say, was in the tens of thousands and they were driven out and in many instances killed.
And your comment states that ''most'' left on their own, which isn't true. And yes I know, the ''Jewish''. Too bad you didn't simply comment to me about that usage so I could explain it. So with that, there isn't much use in discussing this any further.
MYTH
"One million Palestinians were expelled by Israel from 1947-49."
FACT
The Palestinians left their homes in 1947-49 for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders' calls to get out of the way of the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid being caught in the cross fire of a battle.
LINK
Unlike the Jews, who had nowhere to go and fought with their back to the wall, the Palestinians had nearby shelters. From the beginning of hostilities, an increasing flow of refugees drifted into the heart of Arab-populated areas and into adjacent countries.
~~~~~~~
When riots broke out, middle-class Palestinians sent their families to neighboring countries and joined them after the situation deteriorated. Others moved from the vicinity of the front lines to less exposed areas in the interior of the Arab sector. Non-Palestinian Arabs returned to Syria, Lebanon and Egypt to avoid the hardships of war. First-generation rootless emigrants from the countryside to urban centers returned to their villages. Thousands of Palestinian government employees - doctors, nurses, civil servants, lawyers, clerks, etc. - became redundant and departed as the mandatory administration disintegrated. This set a model and created an atmosphere of desertion that rapidly expanded to wider circles. Between half to two-thirds of the inhabitants in cities such as Haifa or Jaffa had abandoned their homes before the Jews stormed these towns in late April 1948.
LINK
According to a Wikipedia article, the Jewish population of Palestine in 1947 was around 5-7% of the total population
Israel and the Palestinians have to come to some agreement about this land. It sounds convincing to say that the Palestinians just should have accepted the 1947 partition and all the decades of ensuing bloodshed might have been avoided.
But, the partition, according to what I have read, gave 56 % of the land to the proposed Jewish state, although Jews were only 7% of the population. Might that have had something to do with the Palestinians rejecting the UN Resolution?
The entire situation was botched by the European powers, who mainly wanted to wash their hands of the whole question of "whose" land it was. In 1947 colonialism was starting to hit a brick wall and Britain , limping badly from the war, wanted to focus on their own homeland.
After the Holocaust the Jewish people obviously needed their own country, for their own safety, and they had a historic claim to Palestine. Problem was there were already almost 2 million non Jewish people living on the land.
The past is in the past. Israel needs to give a little , and the Palestinians need to give a little.
The author of something called 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine' would of course be not the least bit biased against the historical roots of Palestine and is bound to believe that Israel is an Apartheid state, and probably would have written that men from Mars built temples temples upon which the Muslims built their so-called "holy" mosque.
Almost everyone who writes a history of conflict has a bias.
What exactly do you disagree with in the excerpt I posted?
(deleted)
No, you're not cognizant of shit concerning what I think about Israel.
I totally support a Jewish state on that land, and there is one, Israel. Dont think you will paint me into a box and call me anti-semitic Buzz, cause it aint gonna happen.
I didn't say it was inaccurate. I said it was biased. The very title the author chose is biased. It may well cite accurate facts, but all of them are to the benefit of the Palestinians. For example, although a big thing is being made that the population was so lopsided did not mention that the space would be needed for all the Jews who were expected to move to a nation that would be their homeland.
Take into consideration that the fact that I almost immediately tried to delete that comment, before seeing your reply, obviously I knew that it was not valid. However, all of your postings about Israel and the Palestinians/Hamas have been "both sides now" as some other members postings have been. On the issue of Israel and Palestine, I am pretty obviously one-sided. I never even insinuated you were anti-semitic so don't throw that at me.
As I'm sure you are aware, the Israelis had occupied Gaza. And then they withdrew completely. They just didn't want to continue the occupation. (And it wasn't under pressure from the U.S., the UN, or anyone else. They wanted to leave and they did). So it seems certain to me that they (the majority of Israelis)don't want to occupy it.
The West bank is different. Netanyahu does want to occupy it and he probably wants to totally annex it. Which is crazy. (Of course some Israelis disagree, and apparently his popularity has fallen greatly since the terror attack on October 7th).
I could be wrong but I don't think there can ever be peace if Israel continues to occupy the West Bank.
Personally, I am of the opinion that it is the Palestinians who are the "occupiers" of the West Bank.
I agree with that, Krish and at some point both sides have to say, enough and look to the future not live in the past.
In the words of the great Chief Joseph, ''I will fight no more forever''...