A friend posted this video. It is about Hamas executing Israeli collaborators. This led to an exchange of thoughts on the video. The issue of Israeli-Palestinian relations is quite complex, but is also a violent and extreme form of the cultural conflict facing Western Europe and the US. The question, in essence, is how should Israel, Palestine and also Europe and the US, respond to ethno-religious violence or incursion?
Regarding Israel, very briefly, The Ottoman Empire was divided into colonial states under French and British control in the Treaty of Versailles. France was given Lebanon and Syria, and Britain Jordan, Palestine and Iraq. The infamous Sykes-Picot line was the basis for the arbitrary divisions that ignored longstanding tribal and linguistic boundaries. This has made for extensive regional violence and instability.
Prior to that 'settlement', Jews had lived peacefully for hundreds of years among Arabs. They were seen as 'People of the Book', and given dhimmi status. This guaranteed them rights within their community although a lesser status in the Muslim state, and tolerance as long as they paid the associated tax. After the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, Jews began immigrating into Palestine, both legally and illegally. Anti-Semitic violence increased proportionately, especially after WW2 and the UN decision to make Palestine a Jewish homeland.
In the 1947 division of Palestine, most of the arable land and weapons were given to Arabs. Surrounding Arab states, however, immediately invaded to restore Arab ownership of all land. This attack was unsuccessful. Israel controlled not only its own land but many areas intended for Arabs. There has been violence ever since.
Arabs wish to regain land they feel was stolen from them by treaty and illegal immigration. I understand their point. If a European and Chinese treaty took New Jersey and gave it as a home for illegal Mexican immigrants, every New Jersey citizen would be furious, and other US states would surely come to their aid to recover American land.
The flip side of this is that, to continue the analogy, the US broke up, and multiple UN declarations established Israel's right to exist. For Israel, they are a country under unjust and illegal assault for their mere existence. For Arabs it is an illegal international land grab.
Regardless of whose side is favored, there is no question Palestinian Arabs have perpetrated years of violence against Israel and Israeli citizens, while Israel has not. In return Israel has made several military incursions into Gaza, seized the West Bank during the 1967 war, and has administered it very harshly. Israel is condemned for human rights violations in this setting, and they reply that ongoing Palestinian violence justifies their oppressive laws. Broadly speaking my sympathies are with Israel. I would respond very aggressively to those who attack my civilians. It is not simply my right but my obligation as a nation to defend my borders and my people. I wonder which European nation would tolerate ongoing, random attacks on civilians without responding.
But in fact Islamic violence and illegal immigration are issues for both the EU and the US, and Israel is doing a much better job addressing them. Mass migrants, which are straining humanitarian resources and local populations, are being tolerated as refugees. In the US, the larger problem is hispanic illegal immigration, admittedly without the violence attached to radical Islamist groups. Responses to ISIS and Al Qaeda, absent US prodding, have been almost none. US responses to illegal hispanic immigration have also been anemic, despite perfectly plain law regarding these problems.
An essential part of national definition is control of its borders. Here are EU illegal immigration penalties. There are substantial fines, and prison terms of between 30 days and 5 years. Here are US penalties for the same offenses. They are quite similar. Penalties are harshest for deliberate employment of illegals or facilitation of their entry. US enforcement of immigration law now accounts for 52% of incarcerations. Here is equivalent data for Britain. The problem is not existing law; it is interpretation of illegal immigrants as 'refugees', deliberate governmental npn-enforcement as policy, and designations (refugee status) which make them admissable.
Another defining part of a society is its language. While some claim official languages are uncommon, 178 nations have one. Neither the US nor Britain are one of them. Without a national language, there may be construed a legal requirement to provide multi-lingual signs, translators and services to immigrants in their native language (all of this is required in the US by law). Since language immersion is an important part of assimilation, complete integration of immigrants into a society is delayed by a lack of a national language. Speakers of German, Chinese, Italian, Greek, Norwegian, French, etc, etc have all had to learn English without governmental help, and all assimilated just fine.
So what is my point? There are three.
First, a nation is entirely entitled and obligated to defend its citizens and territory. Israel has not responded aggressively enough to Palestinian terror. The Geneva Convention specifically exempts terrorist activity in a civilian zone from limitation on attacks against civilian targets. Israel could bulldoze, literally, the entire Gaza strip and not violate the Geneva Conventions. Tolerance of violence in the name of peace has always failed, whether in international relations (lead-up to WW2, 1991 Persian Gulf War, among many others) or at home, in discipline of teenagers.
Second, the West is failing to define its borders, its languages and its safety. Claiming it violates 'western values' to attack and exclude your enemies is one of the most foolish things I have ever heard. Considering their 'oppression' as an excuse for their violence, non-assimilation and terror is similarly self-destructive. The US and the EU need to be closing their borders to terrorist infiltration disguised as refugees, and deport those who do not assimilate, rather than avoiding law enforcement in immigrant neighborhoods. Here are multiple links to articles on this problem- Washington Times, The Independent, USA Today, PBS, Boston Globe, Gates Institute.
Finally, it is completely appropriate to use violence to end violence. Belief in peace and comity are great as long as both sides share the opinion. If they don't you will be destroyed by those willing to use violence. An exchange from Mississippi Burning applies here-
-Just be careful whose rights you're violating
-Don't put me on your pedestal Mr Ward
-Don't pull me into your gutter Mr Anderson!
-These people crawled out of a sewer! Maybe the gutter is where we belong!
Freedom is a light for which many have died in darkness. The unwillingness to defend western values, borders, and language is a profound failing.
Ted
Regarding Israel, very briefly, The Ottoman Empire was divided into colonial states under French and British control in the Treaty of Versailles. France was given Lebanon and Syria, and Britain Jordan, Palestine and Iraq. The infamous Sykes-Picot line was the basis for the arbitrary divisions that ignored longstanding tribal and linguistic boundaries. This has made for extensive regional violence and instability.
Prior to that 'settlement', Jews had lived peacefully for hundreds of years among Arabs. They were seen as 'People of the Book', and given dhimmi status. This guaranteed them rights within their community although a lesser status in the Muslim state, and tolerance as long as they paid the associated tax. After the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, Jews began immigrating into Palestine, both legally and illegally. Anti-Semitic violence increased proportionately, especially after WW2 and the UN decision to make Palestine a Jewish homeland.
In the 1947 division of Palestine, most of the arable land and weapons were given to Arabs. Surrounding Arab states, however, immediately invaded to restore Arab ownership of all land. This attack was unsuccessful. Israel controlled not only its own land but many areas intended for Arabs. There has been violence ever since.
Arabs wish to regain land they feel was stolen from them by treaty and illegal immigration. I understand their point. If a European and Chinese treaty took New Jersey and gave it as a home for illegal Mexican immigrants, every New Jersey citizen would be furious, and other US states would surely come to their aid to recover American land.
The flip side of this is that, to continue the analogy, the US broke up, and multiple UN declarations established Israel's right to exist. For Israel, they are a country under unjust and illegal assault for their mere existence. For Arabs it is an illegal international land grab.
Regardless of whose side is favored, there is no question Palestinian Arabs have perpetrated years of violence against Israel and Israeli citizens, while Israel has not. In return Israel has made several military incursions into Gaza, seized the West Bank during the 1967 war, and has administered it very harshly. Israel is condemned for human rights violations in this setting, and they reply that ongoing Palestinian violence justifies their oppressive laws. Broadly speaking my sympathies are with Israel. I would respond very aggressively to those who attack my civilians. It is not simply my right but my obligation as a nation to defend my borders and my people. I wonder which European nation would tolerate ongoing, random attacks on civilians without responding.
An essential part of national definition is control of its borders. Here are EU illegal immigration penalties. There are substantial fines, and prison terms of between 30 days and 5 years. Here are US penalties for the same offenses. They are quite similar. Penalties are harshest for deliberate employment of illegals or facilitation of their entry. US enforcement of immigration law now accounts for 52% of incarcerations. Here is equivalent data for Britain. The problem is not existing law; it is interpretation of illegal immigrants as 'refugees', deliberate governmental npn-enforcement as policy, and designations (refugee status) which make them admissable.
Another defining part of a society is its language. While some claim official languages are uncommon, 178 nations have one. Neither the US nor Britain are one of them. Without a national language, there may be construed a legal requirement to provide multi-lingual signs, translators and services to immigrants in their native language (all of this is required in the US by law). Since language immersion is an important part of assimilation, complete integration of immigrants into a society is delayed by a lack of a national language. Speakers of German, Chinese, Italian, Greek, Norwegian, French, etc, etc have all had to learn English without governmental help, and all assimilated just fine.
So what is my point? There are three.
First, a nation is entirely entitled and obligated to defend its citizens and territory. Israel has not responded aggressively enough to Palestinian terror. The Geneva Convention specifically exempts terrorist activity in a civilian zone from limitation on attacks against civilian targets. Israel could bulldoze, literally, the entire Gaza strip and not violate the Geneva Conventions. Tolerance of violence in the name of peace has always failed, whether in international relations (lead-up to WW2, 1991 Persian Gulf War, among many others) or at home, in discipline of teenagers.
Second, the West is failing to define its borders, its languages and its safety. Claiming it violates 'western values' to attack and exclude your enemies is one of the most foolish things I have ever heard. Considering their 'oppression' as an excuse for their violence, non-assimilation and terror is similarly self-destructive. The US and the EU need to be closing their borders to terrorist infiltration disguised as refugees, and deport those who do not assimilate, rather than avoiding law enforcement in immigrant neighborhoods. Here are multiple links to articles on this problem- Washington Times, The Independent, USA Today, PBS, Boston Globe, Gates Institute.
Finally, it is completely appropriate to use violence to end violence. Belief in peace and comity are great as long as both sides share the opinion. If they don't you will be destroyed by those willing to use violence. An exchange from Mississippi Burning applies here-
-Just be careful whose rights you're violating
-Don't put me on your pedestal Mr Ward
-Don't pull me into your gutter Mr Anderson!
-These people crawled out of a sewer! Maybe the gutter is where we belong!
Freedom is a light for which many have died in darkness. The unwillingness to defend western values, borders, and language is a profound failing.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment