Personal opinion time:

Of Palestine and Other Fallacies

Recent events in the Middle East have put my mind to thinking and I've come to the conclusion that Rush is right. The only way to settle things in the Middle East is to let one of the bastards kill the other. That's right, hands off, stand back, and watch the fracas. We can help pick up the pieces when the fighting's done, but until one side is defeated, and admits defeat, matters are only going to get worse.

The historical roots of the problem are legendary and subject to endless debate. It reminds me of nothing so much as two kids arguing, "It's your fault!" "No it's not!" "Yes it is!" "No it's not!" On and on, 2,000 years worth. Coming in now and trying to figure out who started what is silly and counter-productive, but there is a central question: How many wars does Israel have to fight?

Apparently, the answer is "more and more." Why? Because each time they fight a war, it never ends with the destruction of either side. In the first war, the 1948 War of Independence, the Israel was satisfied with ejecting the invaders and remaining intact. In the 1956 Sinai War, Israel decided a buffer would be nice when Egypt decided to nationalize the Suez Canal, so they took the Sinai Peninsula. (Meanwhile, the British and French--equally pissed at Egypt--attacked via the canal, pissing the Egyptians, and much of the world, off. Eventually everyone withdrew.

In 1967, the now-notorious Six Day War, Israel suddenly had a flash of inspiration. "Let's hit first!" Further, they noted that invasions and attacks always came from the same areas, so they took them and held them. This included the Sinai (Egypt), all the way to and including the Suez Canal, the Gaza Strip (a little sliver of land that comes off the Sinai and sticks into the southwest portion of Israel), the West Bank and all of Jerusalem (Jordan), and the Golan Heights (Syria). This is the "official" start of the so-called Israeli occupation.

In 1973, the Arabs decided to honor the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur by attacking once again. By all accounts the Israelis were caught flat-footed, and had a rough time of it. By the end, however, Israel had again prevailed. It had buffer zones into Syria and along the west bank of the Suez Canal (again!), both of which it gave up during peace negotiations. Eventually, Israel would give up the Sinai while holding onto Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights.

[Read up on your own. Some varied renditions of the above history can be found at: Arab-Israeli Wars history (strongly pro-Arab, to the extent that they don't even discuss the UN involvement in the creation of Israel); Encyclopedia.com (maybe more "even handed," but that will depend on your personal bias); Arab-Israeli Wars. The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001 (ditto); and Palestine on Encyclopedia.com 2002 (general regional history, and why three major religions all claim and declare the area The Holy Land).]

These are the realities that Israel deals with. The Palestine Liberation Organization, with Yasser Arafat, came into being in 1964 with the express and stated purpose of destroying Israel. There were no cries for a Palestinian state, and this pre-dates the so-called occupation. Call them terrorists, freedom fighters, guerillas--whatever. The bottom line is that the PLO has had as its sole purpose for being the complete and irrevocable destruction of Israel. This continues to be the open and public goal of outwardly radical portions of the movement, such as Hamas, which refers to Israel as the "Jewish occupation of historical Palestine." (See NY Times 04/04/2002.)

It wasn't until 1974 that the Arab nations decided that this Palestinian deal was a great angle. They recognized the PLO as a "government in exile," with Arafat as its leader, and made it a member of the Arab League.

Keep in mind that until then, the assorted Arab nations just wanted Israel (as a nation) gone. They said this loudly and publicly. They did not call for the creation of a Palestinian state, they did not shed tears over Palestinian refugees. They wanted those damn Jews pushed further west, right into the sea. What do you think ticks off Osama bin Laden? He mentions Palestine only as a smoke screen. His greatest bitch at the Western World is that he will not tolerate any non-Muslim foot treading on the Holy land, i.e. all of the Middle East, and this most emphatically includes the Jews of Israel.

So here we are today, and you can probably guess which side I support. I'm sick of the contradictory and hypocritical nature of the Arab nations. I invite you to read their public statements, the rhetoric of their media. You wonder if you live on the same planet as they do. In 1948, there was no outcry when the British and Saudi Arabia created the country Jordan out of the Transjordan, but heaven forfend a tiny chunk of land, at roughly the same time, should become Jewish!

Not that the method of creation was the greatest. Large numbers of people were dispossessed. They could have remained in Israel, but many left rather than face Jewish rule, or live without compensation for the lands they lost. No question that the matter was poorly handled, but I doubt the creation of any country has been entirely just to all those involved. Almost by definition someone loses when someone else takes over a chunk of land. See: US, Old West, History Thereof, not to mention the creation of every country in South America, or even the recent succession of, er, problems coming out of what used to be Yugoslavia, just to provide a few samples and examples.

In many ways, this is a religious issue, as both sides (not to mention the Christians) revere the Middle East as The Holy Land (see above link to history of Palestine). Muslim radicals decry any non-Muslim foot touching holy soil, and it's really a tear that a bunch of Jews live there, and control a bit. For these radicals, the Palestinian "cause" is a political excuse, a means to an end.

Have you looked into how the surrounding Arab nations treated (and treat) refugees from the Palestine region? A small example is the history of the Palestinian terrorist group Black September. Their name does not derive from any action by Israel against Palestinians. It comes from September 1970, after one of the most spectacular airline hijackings ever seen (pre-September 11, 2001, a dark historical coincidence--maybe). Jordan went on the offensive against Arafat, the PLO, and refugees, who had set up camp in Jordan. See Black September and the Black September Terror Movement for more details, and also an insight into the nature of Nobel peace prize recipient Yasser Arafat. Another account may be found at Black September in Jordan 1970-1971. The minimum number of Palestinian casualties during this time was 2,000, and other estimates put the figure much higher.

This pretty much defines how the Palestinian "refugees" have been treated since 1948. You may be appalled at how they were treated when Israel first came to be, but where are the protests of how they are treated in their new host countries? And this persists, over 50 years later, when most of the original dispossessed are probably dead and gone. When do you say, "Enough is enough, this is now the way it is"?

Arabs will cry, "Never!" because they will never accept the existence of a Jewish state in "their" Holy Land. I say the time is now. There is no negotiating out of this; peace is not a "process." Peace is declared when one side is beaten bloody and says, "uncle." (See: US War of Independence, Civil War, any war in Europe, World Wars 1, 2, and 3 (!)--heck, pretty much any war.) Note that during this on-going "crisis" the Arab nations aren't attacking Israel. Note that they're not even cutting off oil to the West, as they did in 1973, or even threatening it (except for the April 8, 2002, declaration from Iraq, and Saddam's "solidarity" with the Palestinian cause will only last 30 days). Everyone knows what would happen if either of these things came to be. As before, if the Arabs were to attack they would get pounded into bloody stumps. If they cut off the oil, they cut off their own money supply. The western world learned from the embargo of 1973, and is better prepared to handle any such action today. Also, President Bush has already shown a willingness to seize foreign assets in the US in his pursuit of terrorist funding. So if Saudi Arabia cuts off the oil, what would stop him from seizing all Arab assets in the United States? (A perfectly legal response to a direct act of war, don't you know.)

As Rush Limbaugh says, there will never be peace until there is a decisive military victory. The time has come to let them beat each other silly--again. May the best man win.