Correspondence With An Israeli Right-Winger

A Jewish friend with whom I have been discussing the Israeli-Palestinian situation placed me on an e-mail subscription list maintained by Yuval N. Zalihouk. Yuval sends out nearly daily e-mails to those on the list in which he purports to provide his readers with the "truth" about Israeli-Palestinian situation. In fact, Yuval refers to himself, with no hint of irony (or modesty) as "Your Truth Provider."

Over the past couple of weeks, I have gotten a number of these e-mails, many of which I simply deleted. A couple of days ago, though, I decided to respond to those still resident in my in box. I thought the messages and my responses might provide some interesting reading for anyone remotely interested in these issues. I am posting these in the order of my responses rather than Yuval's messages:

===================================================================

From Yuval (12/22/04):

Dear friends,

The latest rosy noises from the Middle East are just that, noises. Your Truth Provider, Yuval. [Attaching "Dangerous Liasons" By Frank Gaffney ]


From Bill (12/23/04):

What is the difference between the Palestinian desire for a state in 2004 and the Jewish desire for a state prior to WWII?

From Yuval (12/23/04)

1) Prior to 1964 there was not a national unit called "Palestinians." Jews lived and aspired to re-gain their land for 2000 years.

2) Even since 1964, the "Palestinians" see themselves as an integral part of the Arab nation (see clause one of the Palestinian National Charter).

3) The Arab-Palestinians, as they should be called, have no distinct attributes or characteristics separating them as a nation from other Arabs in the Middle East, particularly Jordan, in which 70% of the population is also so-called Palestinian.

4) There is already a Palestinian state in the Middle East in 78% of the former territory of the British Mandate. It is called Jordan. Why do the Arab-Palestinians deserve two countries?

Please respond to each point.

From Bill (12/27/04):

YNZ writes: "Please respond to each point."

Since there is considerable redundancy among the four numbered points, I have taken the liberty of rearranging some of the sentences so that what I believe to be the three basic "points" are a little clearer:

1. Jews lived and aspired to re-gain their land for 2000 years.

Jews have been able to maintain their ethnic identify for 2000 years, despite dispersions and despite -- or perhaps in part because of -- horrific persecution.. Certainly that much is true, and it is one of history's most remarkable accomplishments. However, I don't think it is accurate to go on to say that Jews have aspired to re-gain "their land" [by which I presume you mean Biblical Israel] for 2000 years. Perhaps there have always been individual Jews who had such aspirations, but Zionism as a movement, as an aspiration of large numbers of Jews, is less than 150 years old. Further, the focus of Zionism originally was not exclusively on Palestine. All Herzl wanted was a country somewhere. It was not until the early part of the 20th century that Zionism, and Weizman in particular, decided that only Palestine would do. Even then, though, Zionism could hardly be called an aspiration of "the Jewish people". Indeed, until the Second World War, Zionism as a movement was wildly controversial even among Jews. It was not until the Holocaust that the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine emerged as something that could legitimately be called a shared aspiration of the Jewish people as a whole.

But all of that is largely beside the point. I did not mean to -- and did not in fact -- demean the legitimacy of the Jewish aspiration for a land of their own. What I asked was, why is that aspiration so very different from the aspirations of the Palestinians for a home of their own. Is your answer really that they haven't waited long enough? Haven't suffered enough?

2. Prior to 1964 there was not a national unit called "Palestinians." Even since 1964, the "Palestinians" see themselves as an integral part of the Arab nation (see clause one of the Palestinian National Charter). The Arab-Palestinians, as they should be called, have no distinct attributes or characteristics separating them as a nation from other Arabs in the Middle East.

Basically, you are denying that the Palestinians exist as a separate ethnic group. Of course Palestinians are Arabs. But that does not mean that they have no "national" identity apart from the Arabs. Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Bulgars, etc. are all Slavs. Yet each considers itself a separate ethnic group with the right to a separate Nation State. Jordanians, Saudis, Iraqis, Yemeni's, Lebanese, etc. are all Arabs as well. Yet, I do not suppose you are suggesting that they should be denied their own states. It is not for you or me or Israel to decide which ethnic group a given people should be assigned to. Ethnic identification is internal. Surely, Jews above all people should recognize that much. Perhaps it is true that Palestinians in the occupied territories have only lately come to think of themselves as a separate ethnic group with an identity different from Jordanian Arabs, or Syrian Arabs, or Saudi Arabs. But, it is a little hard to deny that that is how they think of themselves today. And, having come to this conviction, why is their self-identification as a separate nation any less legitimate than Jewish self-identification as a separate nation? Is it really, again, that they haven't waited long enough? Haven't suffered enough?


3. There is already a Palestinian state in the Middle East in 78% of the former territory of the British Mandate. It is called Jordan. 70% of the population [of Jordan] is also so-called Palestinian. Why do the Arab-Palestinians deserve two countries?

What a strange, strange question! What does "deserving" have to do with anything? Is Israel's claim to a right to exist dependent on what the Jews "deserve." Surely not. It is based on what the Jews want, coupled with their ability to achieve that. Do the English-speaking Caucasians deserve 5 countries? Do the Armenians deserve none? Why are there seven countries in Central America? Perhaps we should reconstitute the Ottoman empire, since, I suspect, well over 70% of the people living in the lands than comprised the Ottoman empire are Arabs?

It seems to me that what lies behind the 2nd and 3rd of your points is something very, very ugly. Do you seriously suggest that the "right" answer to all of this is to deny that the West Bank Palestinians exist as a distinct "nation" and then drive them across the Jordan River? If not, then what, pray tell, is you vision of a "just" solution to all of this?

==================================================================

From Yuval (12/27/04):

Dear friends,

As I have repeated many times in my bulletins, the one Arab nation is divided into twenty two separate countries. Likewise, the Arab-Palestinians are by their own definition an integral part of the Arab nation. Moreover, they already have an independent country called Jordan, in which 70% of the population is, you guest it, Arab-Palestinians. WHY DOES ONE ARAB NATION DESERVE 22 COUNTRIES, AND WHY DO THE ARAB-PALESTINIANS DESERVE TWO? Historically, we know what happened: The European colonialists, mainly Britain and France, divided the Middle East between the various tribes they favored for one reason or another. But Britain also allocated a national home for the Jewish people in the British Mandate territory, an ancient and distinct nation with all the typical and acceptable attributes of a separate nation. This territory was than, yet again, chopped off by Britain who gave 78% of it to Emir Abdallah, thus creating the country of Jordan.

This huge country of Jordan is a viable, independent Arab-Palestinian state, yet they now wish to chop off another part of what's left of the Jewish homeland, the Biblical regions of Judea and Samaria, and create yet another Arab-Palestinian state in them, and the short-sighted, if not the blind, West , is pressuring Israel to concede these regions and allow a murderous state 8 miles from the center of Tel-Aviv. Now you tell me please, have they all in the West gone totally crazy?

Attached, is an important article on the subject by Dr. Yoram Shifftan.

Your Truth Provider,
Yuval.

From Bill (12/27/04):

Excuse me, but this is complete claptrap.

First, who are you to decide what defines a "nation" for another people? Would the Jews allow anyone to do that for them?

Second, would you really like all 22 of those countries to be united? Hee Hee. The very idea is laughable. Israel owes its very existence to the fact that the Arab states are as much at odds with each other as they are with Israel. "Clever Israeli diplomats" indeed!

Third, Dr. Shifftan asserts that "The Balfour declaration was codified in international law by the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine"? Oh, good Lord. Does he (do you?) you actually believe that, or is it just a convenient fiction that allows him/you to maintain the delusion that Israel has a legal right to "Judea" and "Samaria"? In either event, nothing could be further from the truth. The "codification" of the Balfour Declaration, if there ever was one, came in the 1948 UN partition plan. Should we return to those lines?

Fourth, it might be possible to argue that the Mandate was intended to facilitate implementation of the Balfour Declaration. But, even if so, what did that Declaration actually say? "His Majesty's Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object. It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Is there anything in this intentionally vague statement that would lead any reasonable person to believe that even the British, to say nothing of the rest of the world, intended all of what became the British Mandate to be included in the Jewish homeland? What of the statement that "[i]t being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine?"

Fifth, Dr. Shifftan also claims that: "It is an axiom of international relations that one nation deserves one state only." Whenever a person starts a sentence by claiming something is "axiomatic" what he really means is that has absolutely no basis for what follows. This sentence is no exception. It might be axiomatic that each member STATE in the UN is entitled to only one vote. But it is far from axiomatic that each "nation" -- in the sense of a people -- is entitled to one, but only one, state. Just ask the Sioux. Or the Armenians. Conversely, ask the Canadians why they are entitled to a state, rather than being part of the United States. Or ask the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand why they should be separate States. Some peoples who are arguably part of a single "nation" have many states; some peoples who are unquestionably comprise a single "nation" have none. And these allocations have far less to do with what a given "nation" deserves than it does with raw power. Witness the State of Israel.

Finally, and most broadly: will you ever get real? If you were King, what would you do? Obviously, the idea of a Palestinian State on the West Bank and Gaza is anathema. So, what do you propose? Here is a list of the alternatives. Pick one:

Option 1: Give the West Bank back to Jordan. Jordan doesn't want it, of course, and neither do the West Bank Palestinians. But lets ignore that for the moment. Would Israel want it? What, and give up "Judea" and "Samaria" and the West Bank settlements and put a real Arab state 8 miles from Tel Aviv?? I doubt it.

Option 2: Annex the West Bank and its Palestinian population? I doubt that too. That would be the death of Israel as a Jewish state much more quickly than Arab hostility ever would, unless of course you are prepared to implement a full blown apartheid and/or forced sterilization of the Palestinians.

Option 3: Annex the West Bank and drive the Palestinians across the Jordan? Let's just call this the "Slobodan Solution".

Option 4: Maintain the status quo? Maybe you like that answer. Maybe it appeals to some need to suffer, or to perceive your "nation" as persecuted. But, be that as it may, the West is not going to tolerate this outcome. With good reason. Even the Bushies are coming to understand (a) that the continued existence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict poses a genuine threat to vital Western interests (oil being one and security another) and (b) that the creation of a Palestinian State on the West Bank is the only possible means for defusing that conflict.

Let me say this in closing: I am a HUGE fan of the Jewish people. I can think of no people who have contributed more to the development of western civilization, especially on a per capita basis. I am also a huge fan of Israel. What Israel has accomplished in its brief history, against seemingly insurmountable odds, is nothing short of stupendous. And, because I am such a fan of both the Jews and Israel, I choose to believe that people who think the way you appear to are a tiny minority. But, even as a minority, this kind of thinking is giving Israel a bad name and is threatening to undermine support in the last friend Israel has on earth. Is that your goal?

Instead of just ranting, why don't you try to be constructive?

Bill

Please feel free to share this with your readers. (giggle!)

==================================================================

From Yuval (12/25/04):

Dear friends,

The following article is about a shot in the right direction, even if the Dutch ambassador's remarks come decades late. But as the cliche says, better late than never... The Dutch ambassador is of course correct: The number of UN anti-Israel resolutions is ridiculous and always has been. Knowing what the UN is all about, political interests of the free world in the 50 or so Muslim countries with their 1.3 billion population and petroleum in the ground, the ambassador remarks should be taken with a very large grains of salt. I hope this does not turn out to be yet another lonely cry in the desert from a true friend, drowned in the usual chorus of anti-Semitic anti-Israeli bias.

If you belong to the cynics, you will probably look at it as a form of European bribery to Israel for making concessions to the Arabs.

Your Truth Provider,
Yuval.

EU to help Israel in UN, Dutch envoy says

Tovah Lazaroff - Jerusalem Post.

Dec. 23, 2004

Calling the number of anti-Israel resolutions in the UN "ridiculous," Netherlands Ambassador Bob Heinsch told reporters on Wednesday the EU was committed to reducing those numbers.

"We all agree that it is ridiculous that we have 19 to 20 resolutions every year, it is a ritual and we should get rid of that," he said at a Tel Aviv press conference to promote the new European Neighborhood Agreement approved between Israel and the EU on December 13.

It offers Israel many of the same rights afforded states within the European Union. The plan opens Europe's economic, cultural and scientific doors to Israel in exchange for an enhanced EU involvement in the Middle East diplomatic process. Within the context of the plan the EU also promises to combat anti-Semitism and to help Israel normalize its relations with international organizations including the UN.

Hiensch, whose country now holds the EU presidency, said that the EU is so serious about combatting anti-Semitism that it would be committed to that battle even if there were no action plan.

"We condemn it on our own," he said.

The three-year process set out in the Neighborhood Agreement brings Europe and Israel closer, said Hiensch, but is separate from the question of membership in the EU. Nor does it preclude it, he added.

"Israel has not applied for membership," said Hiensch.

If it were to do so, an EU aide explained, it would have to agree to take on all the rules of its institutions, including freedom of movement, which allows Europeans of all religions to settle in EU member states in a way that would run counter to Israel's Law of Return, which grants special status to Jews.

The Neighborhood Agreement with Israel as well as a similar document agreed on between the EU and the Palestinian Authority reflects Europe's desire to play a larger role in the Middle East, said Hiensch. "I expect the EU's role [in the Middle East] to increase," he continued.

He pointed that the EU is already very involved in pushing for free elections and financial reform within the Palestinian Authority.

"It is in the interest of Israel to work together with Europe and we want to work together with Israel," he said. He added that any EU initiatives in the Middle East would be coordinated with the other three Quartet members - the US, UN and Russia.

When it comes to the right of return for Palestinian refugees, he said, the issue can only be settled once there is a Palestinian state.

"We understand that the Palestinians, when there are no negotiations, at this stage are not willing to give up the right of return. That is something that has to be solved in the final status. Like Israel has the settlement question which is parallel to that and Israel has not been willing to give up settlements," said Heinsch.

Within the document, Hiensch said one of the more sensitive issues was the section in which the EU and Israel promise to "cooperate on nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

"We are pleased that Israel was willing to put it on the agenda," said Hiensch.

"It is such a touchy subject that I do not want to make any interpretation of the text other than what is written there," he said. When asked by a reporter if the EU wants Israel to get rid of its "nukes," he said it was difficult to answer the question because Israel "does not confirm publicly that it has any nukes."

But he added, "We would like Israel to join the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty."

The document, which also sets out ways for Israel to cooperate on many international issues such as drug and human trafficking as well as the fight against terrorism, is not a formal contract. It sets out a blueprint for Israel and the EU to work together on issues of mutual interest through subcommittees that have already begun to meet.

Similar actions plans were drawn up between the EU and Moldova, Ukraine, Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan.

From Bill (12/27/04):

I wonder if you noted -- and agreed with -- the following quote from the article:

"We understand that the Palestinians, when there are no negotiations, at this stage are not willing to give up the right of return. That is something that has to be solved in the final status. Like Israel has the settlement question which is parallel to that and Israel has not been willing to give up settlements," said Heinsch.

Do you see the Palestinian claim to a "right of return" as being comparable to the Israeli claim to a right to create and maintain settlements on the West Bank and Gaza. Would you be willing to give up on the Settlememts if the Palestinians abandoned the right of return?

I also wonder if you noticed -- and agreed with -- the fact that the EU has worked out a similar "Neighborhood Agreement" with the Palestinian Authority.

I hope the answer to both questions is "yes", since it seems to me that it is just this sort of equlity of treatment by the West of both Israel and the Palestinians is exactly what is needed.

I for one, find nothing to agrue with in the entire article. However, I must admit to being somewhat surprised that you cited it so unreservedly.

===================================================================

From Yuval: (12/25/04):

Dear friends,

Issue One:

When you ask those Israelis who support Sharon's retreat from Gaza plan despite the obvious political and national dangers, the response of the majority of them is: To spare the lives of Israel's young soldiers. Our young sons and daughters, they say, should not be killed in order to protect some 8000 "settlers." This, my friends, is a fallacy if not a lie!!! After the retreat, when Hamas will transform what's left of Gaza into a huge ammunition dump and continue to shell Israel with intensified ferocity, the IDF will be forced to act at much greater disadvantage compared with protecting Israel from within. Think FALUJA, only much worst! Also think that every Israeli soldier killed equals 60 American casualties. This is no longer a question of whether Gaza is part of our Biblical land, the issue is our lives and the survival of Israel. Caroline Glick's brilliant article on the subject is attached. Please make an effort to read it.

Issue Two:

Israel is doing all it can to facilitate "free and democratic" elections for an Arafat replacement. Hundreds of observers from Europe and the USA are expected here to monitor the "elections." What for? I ask. Only one candidate is running unopposed, Arafat's crony for 40 years, Abu Mazen. Is this a democracy? Does it really matter if 80% or 87% vote for him, or whether the elections are fully or partially free? What is the difference between these elections and those for Stalin, Mubarak or Saddam?

Do you wonder in amazement about this charade as I am? Are we to cry or to laugh?
Excuse me, but who are they kidding?

Your Truth Provider,
Yuval.

From Bill(12/27/04):

On Issue 1:

Do you not find the following passage from the Glick article even a tad bit ironic:

"How are they to imagine that the lands they have cultivated, the communities they have built and the homes where they have raised their families are set to be turned over to the same people who are bombing them around the clock?"
This sentiment is remarkably similar to the sentiments expressed in the Palestinian press regarding the Palestinian's loss of their own lands 50 years ago.

As to the overall message of the Glick article: Yes there is danger in pulling out of Gaza and the West Bank. But what is the alternative? Another 50 years of war and killing? And, how pray tell could it get any worse than it already is?

As to Issue 2:

How are the Palestinian elections different from those of Stalin, Mubarak or Saddam? Well, for one thing there are multiple candidates running. Sounds pretty democratic to me. The fact that one candidate is far ahead of the others in the polling doesn't mean the process is a sham. If what you want is a closer election, maybe you would be in favor of releasing Marwan Barghouti?

But, besides that, what would you propose? Canceling the elections? Raising Arafat from the dead? At some point you have to stop just saying what you are against and start saying what you are for.

===================================================================

From Yuval (12/23/04):

Dear friends,

Where did all the millions Arafat stole from his people go? Here is Bloomberg's published article of today, December 23, 2004.

Your Truth Provider,
Yuval.

From Bill (12/27/04):

"Stole" seems a little over the top since the article is apparently based on records released by the Palestinian authority -- which presumably now has control over these investments. Investing foolishly might be a better description. But, even if "stole" is the right verb, what possible difference could it make?

The man is dead.

From Yuval(12/27/04):

Stole refered to embazzling many millions of PA moneys and transfering them to Swiss private accounts. Some of these moneys were invested by him personally in the various investments mentioned in the article. I do not think "stole" is over the top.
It does make a difference for now because the PA should claim the money back. Also, why should the West pour even more money into the PA before the PA gurantees to stop the corruption??

===================================================================

From Yuval (12/23/04):

Dear friends,
I am reminded of the following quote by one of my exceptional readers. Please read it, then scroll down to discover the author.

Your Truth Provider,
Yuval.

"I see with sorrow and great anger how a part of the people still clings to hopes of reaching a peaceful settlement with the Arabs. Common sense tells them, too, that the Arabs haven't abandoned their basic aim of destroying the State; but the self-delusion and self-deception that have always plagued the Jews are at work again. It's our great misfortune. They want to believe, so they believe. They want not to see, so they shut their eyes. They want not to learn from thousands of years of history, so they distort it. They want to bring about a sacrifice, and they do indeed. It would be comic, if it wasn't so tragic. What a saddening and irritating lot this Jewish People is!"

The writer goes on, "The Wars of the Jews" are always the ugliest and hardest of all. These are the wars of apologetics and futile bickering, suppression or distortion of facts, and procrastination in making decisions. There is no doubt that what's called for is new leadership, a more correct perception of the realities, a sound recognition of the enemy's aims, and clear, definitive strategic-political planning. There must be no fumbling in the dark and no more tactical expedients, for these will get us nowhere. If we don't have a well-defined, realistic objective, we won't have to fight the Arabs for our survival. The Arabs won't need to fight. The Jews, as usual, will destroy themselves."

He ends by saying, "In the main, the people, as a body, lacks the perserverence while it abounds in political and military blindness. But I repeat, maybe this time we'll sober up."

CLEARLY, NOTHING HAS CHANGED!

(Scroll down for name of author.......................)

Yoni Netanyahu, in letter to his Mom and Dad, 11/17/73

From Bill (12/27/04):

"I see with sorrow and great anger how a part of the people still clings to hopes of reaching a peaceful settlement with the Arabs."

I see with sorrow and great anger how a part of the people still clings to the hopes of "Greater Israel" and would prefer to consign two peoples to endless violence and bloodshed rather than give up on that idea and seek peace.

"Common sense tells them, too, that the Arabs haven't abandoned their basic aim of destroying the State; but the self-delusion and self-deception that have always plagued the Jews are at work again."

Common sense tells them that the Arab states no longer have even the remotest desire to destroy Israel -- and that no one else has even the theoretical capability of doing so; but the self delusion and the self-deception (not to mention the joys of feeling sorry for oneself) that have always plagued some of the Jews are at work again.

"It's our great misfortune. They want to believe, so they believe. They want not to see, so they shut their eyes."

It's our great misfortune. They want to believe their survival is in jeopardy, so they believe. They want not to see how secure they really are, so they shut their eyes.

"They want not to learn from thousands of years of history, so they distort it."

They want to preserve thousands of years of persecution, so they distort the present to convince themselves that nothing has changed.

"They want to bring about a sacrifice, and they do indeed. It would be comic, if it wasn't so tragic."

How true. How true.

"What a saddening and irritating lot this Jewish People is!"

What an inspiring and admirable lot the Israeli People could be.

"The Wars of the Jews" are always the ugliest and hardest of all. These are the wars of apologetics and futile bickering, suppression or distortion of facts, and procrastination in making decisions."

Can't speak to that, but it has the ring of truth.

"There is no doubt that what's called for is new leadership, a more correct perception of the realities, a sound recognition of the enemy's aims, and clear, definitive strategic-political planning."

I couldn't agree more. Where is Labor when we need them?

"There must be no fumbling in the dark and no more tactical expedients, for these will get us nowhere."

Agreed.

If we don't have a well-defined, realistic objective, we won't have to fight the Arabs for our survival. The Arabs won't need to fight. The Jews, as usual, will destroy themselves."

Agreed again.