Still More of the Yuval-Bill Debates

As you might have expected, my allusion to Hitler was -- shall we say -- not well recieved. In the interests of fairness and completeness, here is Yuvals response along with my defense:

Yuval: Now your true face reveals itself.

Bill: What face is that? The face of a man who is appalled at the idea that someone would seriously advocate "relocating" the West Bank Palestinians "elsewhere"? Yes, I am appalled.

Yuval:There is nothing more telling about a person than the invocation by him of Hitler.

Bill: Excuse me, but the first mention of Hitler came from you: "Furthermore, the term humiliation is reminiscent of 1933 Germany. The Germans were 'humiliated' therefore they saw themselves justified to murder the entire Europe. " I simply took your own analogy and turned it around. However, given the incendiary nature of such an allusion, I regret it. Slobodan Milosevic would have suited my purposes just as well.

Yuval: In my response I will try to stay on a higher ground although I do not think you deserve it. Here is why all your comments totally miss the mark and prove not only your ignorance about the Middle East conflict, but your bias.

Bill: I'm not sure calling me "ignorant" and "biased" is what I would call "staying on higher ground", but let's let that pass.

Yuval:I have no contempt for anybody, it is a feeling I do not posses. I was raised by an Arab woman and on the personal level I have absolutely no animosity to anybody, nor bad thoughts. Quite the contrary, I admire the Arabs for the success they have in their propaganda which is aimed at gullible people like yourself. The only feeling I have towards our mortal enemy is epitomized in a Talmud saying: "Respect and suspect."

Bill: Excuse me again, but wasn't it you who said: "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?" If denying a people's existence as a distinct group with a distinct consciousness and identify is not contempt, then I do not know what is.

Yuval: What we are dealing with is a conflict between two peoples, one whose goal is to destroy the other and one whose goal is to reach reasonable and honorable solution. I and ALL Israelis belong to the latter.

Bill: Here is the core of our disagreement. I do not believe the Palestinian goal is to destroy Israel any more than I believe that is the goal of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon or Iraq. All of these countries/entities did at one time have that goal. But things have changed. Today, all that any of them want is a return of the land they lost in 1967 (except for Jordan which doesn't even want that) and a State for the Palestinians on the West Bank, a symbolic nod to the "right of return", a capital in East Jerusalem, and some sort of agreement on access to and control of the Temple Mount. To them, that is the "reasonable and honorable" solution and to them it is Israel that wants to "destroy" those aspirations. Talk of destroying Israel, even of the right of return, is a mixture of propaganda and posturing for purposes of negotiation. Israel does a bit of that as well, as does any party to a negotiation.

Yuval:"Race" has nothing to do with anything (this more than everything reveals our bias). Nationality on the other hand has everything to do with it.

Bill: I intentionally put "race" in quotes to denote that I was using it in other than its normal sense. Even so, it was not a good choice of words. I should have said "people" or "nation."

Yuval: Just like the French, the Australians, the Americans and any other national unit, the Jewish people are entitled to their own land, particularly their 3000 years historical land.

Bill: Have I ever disagreed with this? My question is, why is not the same true for the West Bank and Gaza Palestinians? Your answer is, apparently, that they are not "distinct" enough. However, I think they believe you are wrong in that. And it is what they believe, not what you or I believe, that is what matters. The issue I have is not the right of the Jewish people to a land of their own. The issue is how much of Palestine that land should include, given the rights and interests of the non-Jewish people who live there.

Yuval: Resettling the refugees with compensation is an option in UN Resolution 194. Read it and see for yourself.

Bill: Actually, what UNR 194 authorizes is a right of return. Compensation is to be paid only if a refugee chooses not to return:

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

There is nothing in this resolution -- or in any other principle of international law -- that authorizes or even contemplates a "resettlement "of an indigenous population in order to make room for the expansion of another state.

Yuval: Exchanges of populations happened many times in history.

Bill: When exactly? Certainly, there have been expulsions of populations many times in history, but I am not aware of any "population exchanges".

Yuval: I remind you lest you forgot, that close to one million Jews became refugees from Arab countries and were absorbed in Israel after 1948.

Bill: Are you suggesting that the Arab countries were right to do this; that this is how countries should act? The expulsion of the Jews from Arab countries was no more justified than the expulsion of Palestinians from Israel or from the West Bank would be. In addition to the moral and legal issues, though, there is an immense practical difference: The Jews had a place to go that wanted them when they were expelled. The Palestinians do not.

Yuval:No reason why the Palestinian refugees should not have the same opportunity to resettle in other Arab countries or elsewhere.

Bill: "Opportunity?" Do you really think the Palestinians would consider leaving their own homes and villages to be refugees in some other county to be an "opportunity"? No reason? Except for the fact that they don't want to resettle in other Arab countries or elsewhere. They want to live where they are living now.

Yuval:This solution is much more humane and universal than the continuation of the conflict in which innocent people continue live in camps and get killed.

Bill: Now we have gone completely through the looking glass. Resettlement is humane?

Yuval: I am not subjecting any people to war.

Bill: You would be if your ideas were accepted. Do you really think that "relocating" the Palestinians to Jordan (or elsewhere) would end the conflict? Isn't this simply a reprise -- on a larger scale -- of what happened in 1948?

Yuval:By your bias and attitude it is you who encourages those who wish to destroy Israel.

Bill: You do like that word bias, don't you? Against whom am I biased? Against what? Not all who disagree with your position are "biased". Also, there is nothing in anything I have ever said or written (or thought for that matter) that could possibly be construed as encouraging those who wish to destroy Israel.

Yuval: Since 1947 Israel accepted all solution imposed on her by the international community. The Arabs did not. Elementary Dr. Watson!!!

Bill: Well, even that is not exactly true, since I assume that Israel is not prepared to return to the 1948 Partition borders. And you at least would not be comfortable with a return to the 1967 borders, even though that is the solution preferred by most of the international community. More to the point, though, we are discussing your ideas, not Israel's. (They are not synonymous, thank goodness). And your idea is to resettle the Palestinians to some other country and incorporate the entire West Bank (and Gaza?) into Israel. That idea defies the international community.

Yuval: The Arabs have 99.9% of the territorial mass of the Middle East.

Bill: I doubt if the percentage is really that high, unless you are counting North Africa as a part of the Middle East, and maybe not even then. But sure, the area of the Arab States is much larger than the area of Israel. I admit, though that the significance of that fact escapes me. Russia is bigger than Estonia. Does that mean Estonia is entitled to more land?

Yuval: They have 22 countries although they are single nation.

Bill: So you keep saying. A "nation" is defined not by culture or language but by how the people themselves identify themselves. Culturally and linguistically, Americans and Canadians are all but indistinguishable; yet I do not think anyone would claim that Americans and Canadians comprised a single "nation." Regardless of how the Arabs perceived themselves at the end of WWI, is there any doubt that the Jordanian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iraqi, Saudi, etc. Arabs all today see themselves a comprising separate "nations"? But, even if you are right and the Arabs do all comprise a single "nation", what significance does that have in terms of what we are talking about? Should they all be required to unite? How would that help resolve anything?

Yuval: Asking to have a land for the Jewish people that is smaller than New Jersey is hardly "lebensraum."

Bill: As small as Israel is, it is not the smallest country on earth. Indeed, it is considerably larger than Lebanon, right next door. Lebensraum is a belief that "my people need more room and we are entitled to take it from others". Such a belief is no less offensive when espoused on behalf of a small country that it is when espoused on behalf of a large one.

Yuval:The Germans conquered foreign sovereign nations.

Bill: True, but so what? Displacement of an indigenous population in order to make room for another is OK so long as the people being displaced are not "sovereign"?

Yuval:Israel is only claiming its own historical land which was recognized by England, the League of Nations and the UN.

Bill: Neither the Balfour Declaration nor the League of Nations Mandate, nor most especially the UN Partition plan recognized or even contemplated the inclusion of what you refer to as Judea and Samaria into the State of Israel. Israel's right to that part of Palestine has never been recognized by anyone.

Yuval:Israel is in Judea and Samaria because Israel was attacked from there in 1967.

Bill: True. And no one, least of all me, disputes that Israel was entirely justified both in going to war and in occupying the West Bank (and Gaza, and the Golan, and the Sinai for that matter). What is not justified is the idea that Israel should keep it.

Yuval: The attacker, Jordan, had no claim to that territory and relinquished it in the peace agreement in 1983. Thus at best, the territory is disputed.

Bill: The Partition Plan, which is the document that created Israel -- in legal contemplation at least -- also confirmed the existence of Transjordan and assigned Judea and Samaria to that country. You cannot deny Jordan's "claim" to that land without simultaneously undermining Israel's "claim" to the land allocated to it by the same Plan.

Yuval:It was never a "Palestinians" sovereignty, and except privately owned lands, which Israel NEVER touched, they have no claim on the land until the fate of the territories are determined by negotiations as mandated in UN Resolution 242. Nothing, but nothing, I said in my piece is in contradiction to these principals.

Bill: Now this is interesting. Are you saying that neither the Palestinians nor Israel currently exercises sovereignty over the West Bank:and that the question of sovereignty is to be negotiated in accordance with UN 242? If so, then we are in complete agreement. But what mystifies me is how you can then say that "Nothing, but nothing, I said in my piece is in contradiction to these principals." Are "relocation" of the Palestinians living on the West Bank to another country and the incorporation of the the entire West Bank into Jordan consistent with UN 242?? I thought UN 242, (in addition to calling for "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force") "Emphasiz[ed] the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and "Affirmed that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the . . .Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict." It is hard for me to see how the solution you are advocating is at any point consistent with these principles.

Yuval: You should be ashamed of yourself invoking Hitler and Nazi terms.

Bill: I am sorry is used the Hitler allusion. Slobodan Milosevic would have done quite nicely. But, in making that analogy, I was not talking about Israel. I was talking about how YOU sounded. Fortunately, so far as I know, Israel itself has had the good sense to reject your ideas for how this conflict should be resolved.

Yuval: I have not advocated the killing of anybody, and never will.

Bill: I am sure that this is true and it was way out of line for me to suggest that this might be otherwise.

Yuval: I base my opinions on reality and careful study of the facts. I wish you had the objectivity and ability to doing the same.

Bill: I do and I do and I do. Unfortunately, disagreeing with you does not ipso facto make me ignorant, stupid or biased -- much less all three.

Yuval: The only idea that lurks in my heart is that people like you will stop spewing hatred and poisonous comparisons. That will make the world a much nicer place to live in.

Bill: Having already apologized for the "poisonous comparison", I do not feel compelled to do so again. I do not apologize for the point, however; only for the allusion. I remain steadfastly, passionately opposed to and appalled by a proposal to solve the Palestinian problem by relocating the Palestinian people to another country. That is a poisonous idea and it deserves to be repudiated in the strongest possible terms.

Yuval: Now go do some homework: Google Palestinian National Charter, UN Resolution 194 and 242 and study it.

Bill: Been there. Done that. And, a lot more besides. Nothing in any of them supports the idea that the solution to this conflict is to relocate the West Bank Palestinians.