Saturday, January 12, 2008

Fitzgerald: Bush, a "Palestinian" state, and "Palestinian" propaganda

“Viable"..."contiguous" -- words used by President Bush to describe a "Palestinian" state

A "Palestinian" state is not "viable." It has no natural resources and no human resources. It would have far too many people, because of the fantastic size of Arab families, an overbreeding that is deliberately encouraged in order to swamp, so it is hoped, the Infidel enemy. It can only exist on the basis of permanent handouts from others. Let those handouts come from other Arabs, and stop the payments from the Infidels.

As for a state that is "contiguous," that would mean that Gaza and the West Bank would somehow meet through a corridor of land. But such a corridor of land would cut Israel in two. Israel would no longer be "contiguous."

Does Bush know the terms of the Mandate for Palestine, or what that Mandate (one of many mandates planned, though all the others resulted in four Arab states, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Jordan -- four of the present twenty-two members of the Arab League) was supposed to achieve? Does he know what its dimensions were supposed to be? Does he know anything about the history of the Ottoman vilayets that came to constitute Mandatory Palestine? Does he know about land ownership -- with 90% of the land being owned by the Ottoman state, then passing to the Mandatory Authority, and then to its intended and rightful successor, the state of Israel? Does he know anything about the massive infusion of Arabs, chiefly from Egypt and Mesopotamia, on top of those who had arrived in the 1840s, as veterans of Abd el-Kabir's campaign in Algeria, or with Mehmet Ali, and who, along with the later arrivals, are now depicted as having been there "since time immemorial"? No, I don't see how someone so ignorant and so dumb could, since almost no one, including the very intelligent, know much or anything about that.

And the Israeli government seems peopled with those who have never learned, or chosen to forget, everything I have mentioned, and a good deal else I might have mentioned, and would have, had I not been concerned for my own health, and the effect on it of my own fury.

And speaking of those who have never learned, a Jihad Watch reader recently claimed that “a substantial percentage of Robert's fans are fundamentalist Christians who are simply to eager to bash another major religion they deem to be ‘wrong.’ Rather than have peace established in the Middle East and deprive Islamic Supremacist of their complaint that US unfairly supports Israel, you would keep the status quo because of your BIBLE. How is that far removed from the actions of Islamic Supremacists?"

Actually, there are quite a few atheists in this particular foxhole. Atheists who happen to know the history of the treatment, or mistreatment, of Jews and other non-Muslim (and non-Arab) minorities in the Middle East. Atheists who know the history of the Jews, including what happened in "Palestine" after the Muslim invasion. Atheists willing to do research into the cadastral (land ownership) records, and the demographic records, of that dusty part of the Ottoman Empire that, split between several vilayets and the separate sanjak of Jerusalem, did not have more than 100,000 people in the mid-19th century, with 15,000 in Jerusalem -- a plurality of them, even then, Jews. Atheists who know perfectly well why Lloyd George, Clemenceau, Jan Christiaan Smuts, and others who founded the League of Nations found it right, found it proper, found it just, to establish a Jewish State, among the various mandates. Four Arab countries came out of those mandates, while the Kurds and the Armenians never had the promises made to them fulfilled, and the Jews received a dimidiated territory -- only historic "Palestine" west of the Jordan.

And that, of course, is precisely the territory that everyone should know perfectly well that the Arabs and Muslims have no intention of letting the Israelis permanently possess, no matter how many further territorial and other absurd concessions the Israelis are forced to make. Their entire negotiating history for the past 59 years has been to give up, give up, give up, tangible gains for promises that are always and everywhere eventually breached. This should come as no surprise for those who follow the Treaty of Al Hudaibiyya, and as Majid Khadduri points out in War and Peace in the Law of Islam, Muhammad's example in that treaty, the 10-year hudna with the Meccans, broken by him after 18 months, is normative for Muslims.

Yes, there are plenty of atheists, Protestants and Catholics too, and Hindus and Buddhists, who realize all this. And would you believe it? There are even Muslims of the Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only variety, and certainly every Muslim apostate I have ever met, who are deeply worried about, concerned about, the State of Israel, and who refuse to contemplate any further surrenders to the Lesser Jihad that will forever be conducted against it.

Not everyone who supports Israel, contrary to the silly stereotype, is a holy-roller Bible-thumper. In fact, it only takes two things. It takes specific historical knowledge, and moral sense. And even if one lacks that knowledge, and that sense, one should know that any further triumphs by Arab Muslims, either by pressuring Israel into still more idiotic and dangerous concessions, or by accepting the Arab narrative that attempts to disguise the Lesser Jihad as a "nationalist struggle" of that recently-invented (circa late 1967) "Palestinian people" (see Zohair Mohsen on this), will only whet, not sate, the Muslim appetite. In other words, all you have to know, now, if you are a non-Muslim, is that any concession, anywhere, to Muslim demands by any non-Muslim people or state, will be bad for all non-Muslims.

That is what many Infidels are coming to recognize. And in so doing, all the hard work of all those Arab, Muslim, and "Palestinian" propagandists over the past forty years is coming unraveled, coming undone.

No comments: