The
gaga Israeli government said that it hopes “this humanitarian gesture
will serve both as a confidence-building measure and help get the peace
process back on track.”
Yeah, right.
Palestinian Authority
President Mahmoud Abbas has been too busy celebrating the return of the
mass murderers’ corpses to tell Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to
buzz off. Abbas is well aware that the purpose of “peace talks” is to
negotiate the “two-state solution” that the Obama administration keeps
pressing for — and that Netanyahu has had no choice but to go along with
it. This is despite the fact that he knows the Palestinians are not in
the least bit interested in establishing a state of their own alongside
Israel. In fact, they admit — or rather boast — that their goal is to
rid all Jews from their midst. (Christians are second on their list of
infidels to conquer, convert or expel.)
In this respect, the
Palestinians are no different from their radical Muslim-Arab brethren
the world over. That they’ve learned from Western apologists how to
frame their aim in rhetoric that is palatable to American and European
ears and sensibilities is the reason that they are leading in the
propaganda war.
One key element of this
war is the repetition of certain catch phrases in such a way as to
lower the bar of the debate, both in Israel and internationally.
“Two-state solution” is one such phrase. That the logic behind it is
based on a slew of false premises has not made the slightest bit of
difference. Once it entered the lexicon, it morphed into a kind of fact
on the ground, the details of which merely had to be worked out between
the State of Israel and the Palestinian state-in-the-making.
No pundit has exposed
this as a lie — and articulated the dangers of allowing it to shape and
dictate Israeli policy — better than Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline
Glick. For years she has dissected the flaws behind the assumption that
the only way for Israel to survive as a Jewish and democratic state is
to separate from the Palestinians by withdrawing from territory they
inhabit.
This assumption — put forth originally by the Left, but adopted by the mainstream — was based largely on demographics.
Palestinians have lots
of children; Jews have Western-style birthrates. If the Palestinians
become citizens of Israel, they have to be given equal rights, including
the vote. When they become a majority, either the state loses its
Jewish identity or it has to enforce the will of the few over the many,
which means it loses its democratic character.
Not so, according to
Glick, whose formula for a “one-state solution” involves not withdrawing
from Judea and Samaria, but rather annexing them. Debunking the notion
that demography is working against Israel due to declining Palestinian
birthrates and increasing Jewish ones, Glick has offered an alternative
option.
In a recent column on U.S. Congressman Joe Walsh, Glick reiterated this option.
And then, out of the
blue, two members of the hard Left in the U.S. went berserk. Peter
Beinart, who can always be counted on to be disingenuous, penned a piece
called “Caroline Glick’s One-State Solution.” In
it, the author of the over-publicized, yet thankfully under-purchased
book, “The Crisis of Zionism,” accused Glick of — get this — hypocrisy.
Why?
A few months ago, the
Kennedy School of Government at Harvard (an alma mater of Glick’s, as it
happens) held a viciously anti-Israel conference dealing with the
“one-state solution.” What Glick and everyone else understood about that
event was that the one state it was actually touting was Palestine.
Of course, Beinart —
though a two-state supporter — didn’t have a problem with that
conference, as it was ostensibly presenting another viewpoint. That it
was the viewpoint of anti-Semites Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer
didn’t make it into Beinart’s column against Glick. What did was the
claim that Glick is no different from the Harvard “one-staters,” except
that they think the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza should all
have equal voting rights, while she excludes Gazans as part of a
“de-facto state.”
His conclusion: “The
best way to dismantle Israel as a Jewish state is through subterfuge.
Look how well it’s working for Caroline Glick.”
The smear campaign didn’t end here, however.
Taking offense at the
mere suggestion that being a “one-stater” means having something in
common with Glick, Ahmed Moor — a Palestinian-American Soros Fellow at
the Kennedy School and co-editor of “After Zionism” — went after Glick
and “liberal Zionists” with equal zeal.
Angry that Beinart dared talk about Glick in the same sentence as the Kennedy School crowd, Moor turned the tables back on him.
“All told it’s easy to see why Glick's brand of firebreathing isn’t so good,” he wrote.
“She’s got a particular way of viewing Arabs and Palestinians. I don’t
think she’d agree to live in the same apartment building as me. But…
would Peter Beinart? That’s the more interesting question.”
I love it when Arabs
attack the leftist Jews who think that being their apologists will grant
them immunity from being thought of as enemies. The irony here is that
it’s not Glick or Beinart who wouldn’t agree to live in Moor’s building;
it’s Moor who wouldn’t agree to live in theirs.
Indeed, it has always
been the Palestinians who refuse to exist in peace with Jews, not the
other way around. The solution lies either in their altering their
worldview or in our asserting our right to our country. No number of
dead Jew-killers returned to their dispatchers on a silver platter is
going to change that fact.
Ruthie Blum, a
former senior editor at The Jerusalem Post, is the author of “To Hell in
a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and the ‘Arab Spring,’” to be released by
RVP Press in the summer.
No comments:
Post a Comment