Hating Israel more than loving Palestinians

Today Nicholas Kristof pleads for Tough love for Israel?
Before he gets to his conclusion though he writes:

Granted, not everybody sees things this way, and discussions of the Middle East usually involve each side offering up its strongest arguments to wrestle with the straw men of the other side. So let me try something different.

Then he proceeds to create a legion of straw men as he responds to the eminently sensible pro-Israel critics of a previous column. (Critics in italics; Kristof’s response in regular font.)

Jews lived in Hebron for 1,800 years continuously … until their community was murdered in 1929 by their Arab neighbors. The Jews in Hebron today — those “settlers” — have reclaimed Jewish property. So I don’t see what makes them illegitimate or illegal. (Irving)

True, Jews have deep ties to Hebron, just as Christians do to Jerusalem and Bethlehem, but none of these bonds confer any right to live in these places or even visit them. If Israel were to bar American Christians from Jerusalem, that would not be grounds for the United States to send in paratroopers and establish settlements. And if Israel insists on controlling the West Bank, then it needs to give citizenship to Palestinians there so that they can vote just like the settlers.

Huh? But when the world accepts the notion that it is unacceptable to acquire land by force, isn’t it hypocritical to accept the forced Jewish exodus from Hebron and the Etzion Bloc? The only reason that Jews weren’t living in Hebron post 1935 and the Etzion Bloc post 1948 (until 1967) was because they were forced out by violence. So the Jewish absence from those areas is acceptable to Kristof, even if that absence occurred in a manner that would violates the standards he applies to Israel.

The paratroopers argument is just plain silly.

And Israel has ceded parts of Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians. We’re not talking about occupation anymore but borders.

One side is a beautiful, literate, medically and scientifically and artistically an advanced society. The other side wants to throw bombs. Why shouldn’t there be a fence? (Mileway)

So, build a fence. But construct it on the 1967 borders, not Palestinian land — and especially not where it divides Palestinian farmers from their land.

Well why not demand that the farmers fight the terrorists? Israel does have to conform to court rulings that often compromise the effectiveness of the fence. What law do the terrorists follow?

While I do condemn this type of violence, it pales in contrast to Palestinian suicide bombers, rockets and other acts of terror against Jews. (Jay)

B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization, reports that a total of 123 Israeli minors have been killed by Palestinians since the second intifada began in 2000, compared with 951 Palestinian minors killed by Israeli security forces.

This proves what? That Israeli is indiscriminate in its application of force? I’d suggest that it proves that the Palestinians sent teenagers out as fighters without uniforms in violation of international law in order to blur the distinction between combatant and non-combatant. This is an important distinction that B’Tselem doesn’t make. Additionally, how many of those 951 were targeted while doing nothing? Every single one of those 123 Israeli minors was targeted by a terrorist.

To withdraw from the West Bank without a partner on the Palestinian side will find Israel in the same fix it has once it withdrew from Gaza: a rain of daily rockets. Yes, the security barrier causes hardship, but terrorist attacks have almost disappeared. That means my kids can ride the bus, go to unguarded restaurants and not worry about being blown up on their way to school. Find another way to keep my kids safe, and I’ll happily tear down the barrier. (Laura)

This is the argument that I have the most trouble countering. Laura has a point: The barrier and checkpoints have reduced terrorism. But as presently implemented, they — and the settlements — also reduce the prospect of a long-term peace agreement that is the best hope for Laura’s children.

Well ignorance and bias didn’t stop Kristof from trying his hand with the other arguments, so why should it stop him now? No, it is the failure to accept Israel’s right to exist and consequently, the honor accorded the terrorists who kill Israelis by Palestinian society (and Arab society in general) that reduces the prospectgs of a “long term peace agreement.”

Kristof continues:

If Israel were to stop the settlements, ease the checkpoints, allow people in and out more freely, and negotiate more enthusiastically with Syria over the Golan Heights and with the Arab countries on the basis of the Saudi peace proposal, then peace might still elude the region. But Israel would at least be doing everything possible to secure its long-term future, rather than bolstering Hamas.

I’m sorry, but Israel got removed the occupation from one area: Gaza and that’s where Hamas is strongest. Israel also withdrew from southern Lebanon and that, in turn, strengthened Hezbollah. The Saudi peace proposal was a sham.

If there is no two-state solution, there will be a one-state solution — and given demographic trends, that will mean either the end of Israeli democracy or the end of the Jewish state. Zionists should be absolutely clamoring for a Palestinian state.

As I mentioned above. Israel’s withdrawn from a number of cities in Judea and Samaria, leaving them under control of the Palestinians. There is already a two state solution. The question is only what borders it will finally have. Kristof’s view seems to be that unless it conforms to the demands of the Palestinians, Israel’s concessions mean nothing.

Laura is right about the need for a sensible Palestinian partner, and the failures of Palestinian leadership have been legion. At the moment, though, Israel has its most reasonable partner ever — Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas — and it is undermining him with its checkpoints and new settlement construction.

As Eric Trager notes:

Well, here’s something that’s very much within Abbas’s control: his mouth. Today, as Israel received two black coffins in exchange for a notorious–and very much alive–murderer, Abbas took the opportunity to “offer congratulations to the family of Samir Kuntar, the chief of Arab prisoners.” With this remark, Abbas demonstrated that, far from being the Great Palestinian Hope, he is merely the latest Palestinian leader who sees glorifying terrorists–and reaching out to their families–as an acceptable, if not principled, political strategy.

Abbas is, at best, ineffective. At worst he is Arafat with a suit. This is a point that was generalized by Elder of Ziyon regarding Marwan Barghouti:

Here we have the Palestinian Arab story in a nutshell. Historically, they have been led by incompetent, corrupt and selfish leaders. Yet their most competent and least corrupt leaders are still unrepentant terrorists.

And it cannot be any other way. Since the Palestinian Arab psyche is so heavily invested in making murderers into heroes, it is impossible to imagine in this generation that an effective leader could emerge who is not a terrorist. Simply put, if you haven’t spent time in Israeli jails for murder, you have no street cred.

Back to Kristof:

Peace-making invariably involves exasperating and intransigent antagonists and unequal steps, just as it did in the decades in which Britain struggled to end terrorism emanating from Northern Ireland. But London never ordered air strikes on Sinn Fein or walled in Catholic neighborhoods. Over time, Britain’s extraordinary restraint slowly changed attitudes so as to make the eventual peace possible.

Well that’s just plain ignorant. There is a separation fence in Belfast that gets credit for reducing violence. And I don’t recall that Sinn Fein launched a military campaign on the level of Fatah and Hamas. Israeli restraint hasn’t brought a reduction in the will of its enemies to launch a war against it.

Furthermore, the peace in Ireland isn’t a function of British restraint; it’s a function of the terrorists’ goal. The IRA never wanted to destroy Britain, they just wanted their independence. Palestinian nationalism – despite wrapping itself in the mantle of “independence” – is predicated on the denial of the Jewish state.

Overall, reading the Kristof column I’m left wondering: when will there be “tough love” for the Palestinians, telling them that their continued support for terror makes peace impossible.

As for Palestinian apologists like Kristof, I wonder why is it that circumstances that would lead them to declare Israel illegitimate are perfectly acceptable for a Palestinian state founded on those very same circumstances. My Shrapnel (playing devil’s advocate) observed:

“Why should we have to? We have an Palestinian minority; why can’t a Palestinian state have a Jewish minority? The people living there could become citizens of the Palestinian state. Or we could do a land exchange”.

Israel has an Arab minority and gets criticized for discrimination. Palestine, whenever it is created will not have a Jewish minority, so such niceties as minority rights won’t need to be observed. (Whether other freedoms such as the press, religion or due process will be observed in Palestine is also a real question.)

Yet people like Kristof have no concerns about such matters. Israel must be a perfect democracy in their books or not deserve to exist, while they take it for granted that Palestine would deny its citizens the very rights they demand of Israel. More incredibly they believe that Israel’s legitimacy depends on creating the little tyranny of Palestine.

Kristof, for his talk of “tough love” for Israel, is silent on the talk of “tough love” for the Palesitnians. Kristof and his fellow travelers don’t tell the Palestinians that they need to give up terror, incitement and Israeli denial. They indulge the terror, making excuses for it. As such they are at least apologists if not accomplices in the bloodshed. And yes, their excuses rather than “tough love” prolong the conflict.

Israel has changed a lot in 20 years. What’s now mainstream in Israel regarding the Palesitnians was the leftist fringe in 1988. Where’s been the reciprocal movement? Until Kristof and his ilk start demanding it there will be none. Despite his posturing, Kristof hates Israel more than he loves the Palestinians.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.