FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Sometimes the truth is difficult. Sometimes you shrink from drawing the conclusions that fact and logic demand. I too have been guilty of this. It’s time to apply logic to the facts and draw the appropriate conclusion.

I’ve written a lot about the Oslo delusion — that territorial concessions to the Arabs will bring peace. Most Israelis understand that it is a delusion (unfortunately, many pro-Israel Americans still believe in it). Nevertheless, territorial compromise — the creation of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria — is now the official position of the ‘right-wing’ government of Israel.

There is no doubt that the strategic and social repercussions of ceding most (or even much) of Judea, Samaria and Eastern Jerusalem would destroy the Jewish state. I’m not going to go into detail about why this is so, because I’ve done it countless times before in these pages.

Thanks to American pressure, this could come about in the near future. So what’s the matter with Israel’s leadership? Why is it seemingly going along — or at most, temporizing? Why isn’t Israel firmly rejecting the idea of a hostile Arab state gnawing at its belly? Martin Sherman thinks, and I agree, that it is because those opposed to the destructive non-solution proposed by the Left and the US have offered no reasonable alternative.

Some have suggested annexing part of the territories (Area C). While this would avoid removing more than 100,000 Jews from their homes, it would not solve the security problems inherent in having hostile Arabs close to Israel’s population centers, and would necessitate impossibly complicated borders.

Others have argued that the demographic impact of annexing all of Judea and Samaria would not be as great as the Left suggests, and that a Jewish majority could be maintained (Arab population estimates are wildly exaggerated, the Jewish birthrate is high, etc.).

Unfortunately, even if the Arab population of Israel were increased only from 20% to 30%, it would be massively destabilizing. This is a very hostile population, including a large number of members of terror organizations. Israel would either need to become a police state to protect itself, or be torn apart by an unprecedented amount of terrorism.

The survival of the state requires at least two things: control of the strategic areas of Judea/Samaria (pretty much all the area), and a population that is primarily Jewish and does not contain hostile elements.

In other words, a reasonable alternative will have to involve Arabs moving, not Jews.

It doesn’t have to be all the Arabs. Unlike them, we don’t require an ethnically pure state to live in. But we also don’t have to live alongside creatures committed to violence, as the members of the PLO and Hamas are.

We can hear the screaming of the Left, the Europeans, the academic community and of course the Muslim world all the way over here. How dare we suggest that Arabs might be displaced (of course, the idea that a ‘solution’ involves expelling every last Jew so ‘Palestine’ can be free of contamination is perfectly reasonable to them)!

This is the essence of what is needed for peace and the continued existence of the Jewish state: possession of Judea and Samaria and expulsion of Arabs who are not prepared to live peacefully alongside Jews in their state. Yes, this solution is harder than signing an instrument of surrender. It will certainly bring down boycotts and sanctions on Israel.

But its objective, unlike that of Kerry’s imposed ‘solution’, is the preservation of the Jewish State of Israel. Accept that, and all the rest is implementation.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Arabs, peace process

Neturei Karta members demonstrate in favor of Jew-hating Hungarian Jobbik party, January 28, 2014

I don’t argue anymore about whether extreme anti-Zionism is other than a form of Jew-hatred. It’s evident from the double standards, the imagery used, and the very special place it holds in the hearts of the self-righteous who enjoy feeling sorry for the dead Jews of the 1940s while supporting those who want to murder the still-living ones of today.

I also don’t take seriously those who say that Jews can’t be professional Jew-haters. This is refuted by a list of counterexamples as long as my arm, from Max Blumenthal to Philip Weiss. They will all say that they are only ‘critical of Israel’s policies’, but if you believe this then you probably also believe that Iran’s nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes.

If more examples of Jewish Jew-hatred are needed, there is a perfect one in our friends from Neturei Karta. They always insist that they are just anti-Zionist, from the purest of religious motives, but their actions show that this is not the case.

Last week, Gábor Vona of the Hungarian Jobbik party spoke at a rally in London in advance of Hungarian elections (Hungarians living abroad who have a permanent address in Hungary can vote). And among his supporters were members of Neturei Karta (who, incidentally, were seriously annoyed that the BBC at first reported that they were demonstrating against Jobbik)! There is no doubt that Jobbik is anti-Jewish in the traditional, ugly European sense. Of course they are also anti-Zionist, but the latter is clearly derivative from the former. It is not possible to be pro-Jobbik without being anti-Jewish.

Worlds away from Neturei Karta in almost every respect we have 58 affluent, progressive Jews from New York. They would never demonstrate on behalf of Jobbik, but they have no trouble bashing New York’s new, very liberal, Mayor Bill De Blasio for — imagine the chutzpah — speaking at an AIPAC event.

What seems to have particularly annoyed them was De Blasio’s statement that his door was open to AIPAC. They responded that

…the needs and concerns of many of your constituents–U.S. Jews like us among them–are not aligned with those of AIPAC, and that no, your job is not to do AIPAC’s bidding when they call you to do so. AIPAC speaks for Israel’s hard-line government and its right-wing supporters, and for them alone; it does not speak for us.

I find this very revealing. AIPAC is a bête noir to Israel-haters like Weiss and Blumenthal, because it is a pro-Israel lobbying organization, and they are anti-Israel. In addition, as Jew haters, they naturally see AIPAC as a conspiracy, because Jewish conspiracies are part of traditional Jew-hatred.

But there is nothing conspiratorial about it — it works to influence the US government in support of the interests of Israel, just like the Saudi Arabian lobby, or the China lobby, or the Micronesian lobby (although, unlike these, it is supported by American citizens and not paid by the states it lobbies for).

AIPAC does not — or tries not to — have a particular ideological tilt. It promotes the positions of Israel’s government, whether it is the labor government of Rabin or Barak, or the Likud government of Netanyahu. It is neither “hard-line” nor “right-wing” as the 58 signatories on the De Blasio letter imply (would that it were).

They happen to dislike Israel’s present government, but recent polls show that support for Netanyahu’s party among Israeli voters, who live there and have to deal with the consequences of their government’s behavior, is stronger than ever.

Earth to 58 ‘progressive’ Jews: it’s called ‘democracy’. You are for that, no?

The truth is that the 58 object to AIPAC because they object to an independent sovereign Jewish state, which is what AIPAC is for. Interestingly, that is also what Neturei Karta is opposed to.

Technorati Tags: Neturei Karta, Jobbik, 58 progressive Jews from New York

Barry Rubin, ×–”ל

This is not a post that I wanted to write, though I knew it was coming. Barry Rubin died last night, aged 64. You can find an obituary here. I and many others will miss Barry, both as a notable scholar of the Middle East and a personal friend.

Barry had at least 18 books to his credit — most of them serious scholarly works. He also wrote hundreds, probably thousands, of scholarly and popular articles, blogs, etc. He edited journals, administered institutes, and spoke in venues around the world. His scholarly writing was nevertheless clear and approachable, even entertaining, without academic jargon. Sometimes he introduced his articles with quotations from popular movies and music, or Shakespeare’s plays.

Unlike many ‘authorities’ on the Middle East, his predictions were usually accurate. He knew the players, and had visited many of the countries. He had correspondents throughout the world. It bothered him that so many important people in government and academia who dealt with the region did not know the most basic facts about it (he used the word ‘idiots’).

Another thing that made him unhappy was the politicization of his field of Middle Eastern Studies. He remarked that when he was a student, he had teachers that strongly disagreed with his pro-Israel politics, but never allowed that to affect their evaluation of his work. Today, he thought, that would not be the case. And today, someone like Barry, despite his qualifications, would have a hard time being hired in a Middle East Studies department.

Barry’s approach was always fact-based analysis. He never fit his conclusions to an ideology, and he could be quite critical of Israel’s policies when he felt that was appropriate. He did not dislike Arabs or Muslims, and had many Arab friends. He did dislike ideologues and they disliked him. Those who cared about the truth respected him.

He continued to work to the end of his life — a decision that he made after being diagnosed with aggressive lung cancer (he did not smoke) 18 months ago, and initially given only a few months to live. Despite his enormous output, he always had time and patience to answer questions from friends and students.

Some months ago, I emailed him a question. “I’m having trouble typing,” he responded. “I’ll call you.” And he did.

I enjoyed talking to Barry about lots of things, not just the Middle East. I first met him in person some years ago when I invited him to speak in Fresno. When I asked about his travel from Los Angeles, he told me that he preferred the train. “I like trains,” he said. I discovered that we shared an interest in railroads, and later was impressed by an elaborately detailed model of the Baltimore area in his Tel Aviv apartment. When did he find time to build this? Who knows?

His untimely death is a great loss for his family and friends, of course, but it is also a loss to scholarship and to the pursuit of truth.

Update [5 Feb 1433 PST]: I wrote that Barry Rubin had at least 18 books and probably thousands of articles to his credit. What an underestimate! An authoritative obituary on his site tells us that he “authored and edited close to 100 books–three of which will be published posthumously–and tens of thousands of articles.”

Technorati Tags: Barry Rubin