Tough Love For Israel?
Richard H. Shulman
Nicholas D. Kristof of the NY Times (7/24, Op.-Ed.) contends that
Israel needs the US to tell it not to strike Iranian nuclear sites and
to freeze building in Judea-Samaria and “greater Jerusalem” (whatever
that is). He calls that “tough love.” It is tough. Where is the
love? These journalists of the traditionally anti-Zionist NY Times
pose as friends of Israel, while opposing what Israel is entitled to
and needs for survival.
Where is the love in demanding that Israel sit and wait for what
Iranian leaders repeatedly threaten to do, annihilate Israel? If Iran
isn’t stopped by Israel, it could next bomb New York, where the Times
is headquartered. Mr. Kristof’s advice is bad for the US.
Where is the love in halting construction in areas that probably will
be negotiated, on the basis of which side’s people live where. The
P.A. builds in order to block off Jewish building. Why is the P.A.
not asked to freeze construction? Why the double standard against the
Jews? Why should the Islamist enemy have any territory from which to
conduct its usual terrorism and attempted genocide?
Mr. Kristof received an argument against his suggestion that Jews
evacuate from Hebron. The argument pointed out that Hebron always had
a Jewish community and that Jews there are living on property that
they own.
He brushed aside the history of Jewish entitlement to Hebron, as the
Times does to the Land of Israel as a whole. He ignored Hebron’s
status as one of Judaism’s four holy cities. He pretended that the
Hebron Jews are not on Jews’ property. He treats them, the indigenous
people, as foreigners. He counter-suggests that if Israel wants to
control Judea-Samaria, it should give Arabs there the franchise.
Actually, Israel did offer alien Arabs of Jerusalem the right to vote
in Israel. (I wouldn’t have.) Most decline. If the Arabs of Judea-
Samaria could vote in Israeli elections, they would take over Israel
and exterminate the Jews. Does Kristof want that, in the name of
democracy that the Arabs don’t practice? I’d like to know.
Kristof boils the issue down to separating the two peoples, Jews and
Arabs. I think Kristof isn’t frank about that. If they are to be
separated, why shouldn’t Israel keep a major part of the Territories,
where there aren’t Arabs? If no Jews are allowed to reside in the
Territories, why should Arabs be allowed to reside in Israel? Kristof
has a double standard there, too. Double standards always against the
Jews. Hmm.
Another e-mail upheld Israel’s right to erect a security fence,
because the Jews are “building a beautiful country into which the
Arabs want to throw bombs.” Kristof countered with a demand that any
fence not divide Arab farmers from their fields and not be built “on
Palestinian land.” He did not define “Palestinian” land. There is no
such thing. It is not valid to label land, whose legal status is that
of the Mandate’s unallocated territory, as belonging to Arab
claimants. Kristof is arguing in behalf of rights that those Arabs do
not have. That is because he, like the Times and theState Dept.,
already have made up their minds what the negotiations should result
in, and are trying to preclude Israel from genuine negotiations that
might result otherwise. Then the US, or Obama, says that conditions,
such as the future of Jerusalem are up to negotiations that they try
to pre-determine for Israel. Tricky, eh?
Israel frequently adjusted the location of the fence, in order to
interfere as little as possible with Arab farmers. The fence does
have gates that farmers can pass through. The few exceptions can
either be ignored or be compensated. National security comes first.
I would check whether those Arab farmers have legal title to their
fields, before exercising eminent domain and paying them for any
really cut off fields. Much of their land is state land that they
usurped.
One of his readers wrote back that Israeli security measures pale in
contrast to Arab terrorism against Jews. Kristof’s answer is to quote
“B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization.” It reports about
eight times as many P.A. minors killed by Israeli security forces as
Israeli minors were killed by Arabs, since 2,000. That answer is
specious.
First, assume that the figures are precise. All the attacks by Arabs
are deliberate, murder, and crimes against humanity. All the attacks
by Israel are in self-defense against gunmen, justified. Further,
fewer Arab children would be killed if the terrorists did not infest
settled areas, which is a war crime, and if the terrorists did not
invite the children to assist them or watch them, and if the
children’s parents kept them away from firefights. The moral onus is
on the Arabs. The reader was right; Kristof is confused about the
ethics of war.
Second, let’s question the figures. B’Tselem is no human rights
organization but a pro-terrorist propaganda organization that falsely
accuses Israel of violations and rarely accuses the Arabs of
violations, of which there are many. (The Times usually cites biased
sources that uphold its position. It rarely reports explosions or
factional warfare not involving Israel, in which the Arabs kill Arab
children. Kristof’s indignation about Arab civilians is phony.) It
is not clear whether internecine Arab casualties are blamed on Israel
as “Arab civilians killed.”
Their figures are not to be trusted. Some of these organizations
count young gunmen as civilian minors, thereby inflating Arab civilian
casualties. They accept Arab claims without checking, though such
claims notoriously are propaganda.
Another e-mail pointed out that, after the disastrous experience with
unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, Kristof couldn’t expect
Israel to do the same with Judea-Samaria. (I reject the assumption
that Israel should give up any land.)
He replied that in Abbas, Israel has a reasonable “partner,” i.e.,
negotiating adversary. Kristof anticipates peace, provided that
Israel stops settlements, eases checkpoints, negotiates more
enthusiastically with Syria, and bases negotiations with other Arabs
on the Saudi proposal. He cites the end of terrorism in Ireland as an
example offering hope.
Ireland is not relevant. Its terrorism wasn’t genocidal like the
Arabs’, motivated by an unreformed religion that hates and represses
rivals. They don’t want peace; they use diplomacy to advance military
goals. Those who ask victims – Israelis – to make concessions to
aggressors – the Arabs – should have a basis for anticipating peace.
Islamic culture does not afford such a basis. Let us not confuse a
treaty, like the ones Hitler and Stalin signed and violated, with
peace.
Abbas would be overthrown as soon as the IDF stopped protecting him.
In any case, he is not reasonable, because he shares Hamas’ means and
goals. Kristof is pretending otherwise, contrary to the record. That
pretense should make one leery of Kristof and his newspaper.
If Israel ceded the Golan, it wouldn’t get peace, it would give Syrian
forces an easy, downhill path to help conquer Israel. Kristof
pretends that the Arabs want peace. What they want are concessions
that facilitate conquest. Kristof would give them those concessions.
The Saudi proposal is not at all for peace. Like Kristof, it makes
demands only of Israel, whereas the wars are the doing of the Arabs
and for reasons of fanaticism that are growing rather than waning.
Those demands would render Israel helpless. Why one-way demands, and
the wrong way, Mr. Kristof?
Saudi demands include the entry into Israel of descendants of all the
actual Arab refugees and of all the fake ones that signed up as
refugees in order to get UNRWA welfare. They have no right to enter
Israel, especially after attempting genocide. Not only would their
entry end Jewish sovereignty, which means Israel should ignore Saudi
demands. Their control would enable them to exterminate the Jewish
population. Therefore, bringing them in is hypocritical of Kristof,
who urges Israel to make peace on the basis of withdrawal, because of
adverse demographic trends (that have since then been disproved.)
I don’t see the difference between S. Arabia’s visceral hatred of the
Jewish people, the Saudi plan to enable fanatics to exterminate the
Israelis, and Kristof’s “tough love.”
In one respect, Kristof is a worse enemy of the Jewish people than the
Saudis. He pretends to be a friend of the Jews and a champion of
peace. He and his newspaper have succeeded in deceiving many Jews.