Navonim - The Ramblings of Garnel Ironheart

Navonim - The Ramblings of Garnel Ironheart

Thursday, 11 June 2009

Creating The Apartheid State

As pressure builds on Israel to accept the Arab version of "The Two State Solution" peace plan, it's important to strip away the lies and illusions being spun by the wordl community and point out the fatal flaws with such an idea.
First, let's deal with a very basic assumption, that Yehuda, Shomron and 'Aza are "occupied territories". Joseph Goebells, y"sh, the Nazi minister of propaganda, will always be remembered for creating the doctrine of "the Big Lie". He realized that if you tell a lie often enough and with sufficient conviction, it will eventually become accepted as the truth.
In the case of Israel, this idea has been used with incredibly good effect. Most people who lack a decent knowledge of Middle East history, or worse, academics who think they have such a knowledge, have come to accept that Yehuda, Shomron and 'Aza are territories illegally mililtarily occupied by Israel.
This, of course, is a lie. Before 1947 the entire area that is Israel plus the "occupied territories" was the British Mandate and that mandate was to create a Jewish National Home in Israel, as per the 1917 Balfour declaration. The British, having violated the terms of that mandate by giving away 75% of that land to their World War I allies in Jordan, consistently attempted to destroy any attempts to create the Jewish National Home in order to gain allies in the Arab world. Despite this, they were forced to abandon Israel when the stubborn Jews in Israel refused to be pushed away and the situation became virtually ungovernable. As a result, the Mandate was handed to the United Nations which voted, in 1947, to partition the land into two countries, Israel and Palestine.
Immediately after the vote, the Arab leadership in Israel refused to accept the results. They announced that they wanted all of Israel for themselves, the Jews be damned, and they began attacking Jews all across the country. In 1948, when Israel declared its independence, the armies of six Arab states, none of whom had anything directly at stake in the creation of the new country, attacked as well. By 1949, just as the Jews were gaining momentum and it looked like they might conquer all the territory west of the Jordan River, the UN stepped in and forced an armistice. The Jews were left with what today is call pre-1967 Israel. The Arabs were left with Yehuda, Shomron and 'Aza.
Only it wasn't the local Arabs that were in charge of those areas. Jordan controlled Yehuda and Shomron while Egypt occupied 'Aza. What Jew haters like to forget is that during the period 1949-1967 these two countries ruled Yehuda, Shomron and 'Aza as military conquests. There was no talk about local autonomy, "Palestinian" self-rule, etc. Pre-1967 Israel was "occupied Palestine" and the target of Arab attacks.
What people also forget is that, aside from Britian and Pakistan, no nation recognized Jordan and Egypt's occupation of Israeli land. At the time, these territories were considered "disputed" or unowned. They were certainly not considered the so-called Palestinian homeland.
It was only when Israel, with the help of God, won the Six Day War and finally regained all the land promised it by the British Mandate, that suddenly the story changed. Instead of being disputed, Yehuda, Shomron and 'Aza were now occuped "Palestinian" territory. The big lie had begun.
And it continues until this day. There was never an independent country called Palestine. Until the PLO invented it, there was never a Palestinian flag. There has never been a Palestinian currency or even postage stamps, nothing in history to give any evidence that a country called Palestine existed and that its people were suddenly deprived of their independence. But by repeating the word "occupied Palestinian territory" the impression has been given that there was and that it was the Israelis who stole it.
Thus Israel is not an occupying power. It is the Arabs who are lying (successfully) in their goal of eradicating the Jewish state.
Now, let's move on to why supporting the two-state resolution makes one a racist. What is the goal of the two state solution? To create the following two countries:
a) Palestine - a state in Yehuda, Shomron, and 'Aza. This state will be exclusively Arab in nature. Jews will be forbidden to live or own property there. Other than Neturei Karta'niks, they will also probably be forbidden entry. This state will proudly call itself Muslim, much to the chagrin of the ever-shrinking Chrisian population, but who cares about them?
b) Israel - the pre-1967 version but with important differences. Part of the two-state solution is implementing the so-called Right of Return. As the story goes, it involves 4.5 million "Palestinians" whose parents and grandparents were driven out of Israel by the Jews in 1949. In fact, it will be a slum-clearing exercise by all the local Arab states as they send 4.5 million of their least desirable citizens to Israel to live. This sudden influx, accompanied by the sudden eviction of 500 000 Jews from their homes in Yehudah and Shomron will cause two things. One is the economic collapse of Israel. The second will be to create an Arab majority which will then decide to jettison all things Jewish about the state, as well as to officially designate the remaining Jews (those who haven't fled, presumably) to permanent second class status.
In other word, Israel will not be a Jewish state, even though the solution demands the creation of a Muslim one. It won't even be a bi-national state for very long. Ultimately it will become another failed Arab state with a sizeable persecuted Jewish minority.
In the 1980's it was a cause celebre for Western liberals to demand the end of apartheid in South Africa. I wonder how many of these self-designated anti-racists are worried that in supporting the two state solution they are supporting the creation of two race-based states?

1 comment:

Rabbi Ben Hecht said...

As extension of Garnel's words, may I direct everyone to my article, Chutzpah< in the Jewish Tribune (Toronto) which is available on line at

Having said this, may I just deviate for a moment. I believe the issue is potentially no longer two two state solution but rather the argument for one, completely, democratic state in the region. Forget the fact that there is no democratic nation in the Arab world (I mean really democratic), this is an argument that I believe will catch fire with leftists in the world. And the issue will no longer be Jew vs Arab but rather -- doesn't an inhabitant of a land deserve the right to vote? That's when a charge of apartheid will gain force because its charge was - one man, one vote -- and who can be against that.

Of course there are arguments against such a "solution," and the absence of a democracy in the Arab world is a weak answer because people will just contend that they must learn and we still must do "the right thing", (of course at our expense and not theirs). The point is, though, that we should be prepared for the next onslaught -- not Jew and Arab, but rather every person on the land having a right to vote. And this argument will contend that history doesn't matter -- it doesn't matter who was on the land yesterday -- its one vote for everyone on the land today.

Rabbi Ben Hecht