Mark Steyn wrote in Sun Times Afew years back, when folks talked airily about "the Middle East peace process" and "a two-state solution," I used to say that the trouble was the Palestinians saw a two-state solution as an interim stage en route to a one-state solution. I underestimated Islamist depravity. As we now see in Gaza and southern Lebanon, any two-state solution would be an interim stage en route to a no-state solution.
Absolutely. We see in Gaza that they have absolutely no idea how to run a state, they just want an area where they can bring in weapons to attack Israel.In one of the most admirably straightforward of Islamist declarations, Hussein Massawi, the Hezbollah leader behind the slaughter of U.S. and French forces 20 years ago, put it this way: "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."
That is Evil's ultimate objective.Swell. But, suppose he got his way, what then? Suppose every last Jew in Israel were dead or fled, what would rise in place of the Zionist Entity? It would be something like the Hamas-Hezbollah terror squats in Gaza and Lebanon writ large. Hamas won a landslide in the Palestinian elections, and Hezbollah similarly won formal control of key Lebanese Cabinet ministries. But they're not Mussolini: They have no interest in making the trains run on time. And to be honest, who can blame them? If you're a big-time terrorist mastermind, it's frankly a bit of a bore to find yourself Deputy Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Pensions, particularly when you're no good at it and no matter how lavishly the European Union throws money at you there never seems to be any in the kitty when it comes to making payroll.
It all goes to buying weapons, or to personal bank accounts in case they live long enough to retire.So, like a business that's over-diversified, both Hamas and Hezbollah retreated to their core activity: Jew-killing.
Six years later, in 1973, Egypt invaded the Israeli-held Sinai Peninsula, a war that ended in a boost in Egyptian morale from its initially successful surprise attack. Though nearly all of the Sinai remained in Israel's hands, the boost in Egyptian self-confidence enabled Egypt's visionary president, Anwar Sadat, four years later (November 1977), to do the unimaginable for an Arab leader: He visited Israel and addressed its parliament in Jerusalem. As a result, in 1978, Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty in return for which Israel gave all of the oil-rich Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt.Three years later, in 1981, Sadat was assassinated by Egyptian Muslims, a killing welcomed by most Arabs, including the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization). Why welcomed? Because Sadat had done the unforgivable -- recognized Israel and made peace with it.
The lesson that Palestinians should have learned from the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement was that if you make peace with Israel, you will not only get peace in return, you will also get all or nearly all of your land back. That is how much Israelis ache for peace.Think about Israel for one moment: Israel is one of the most advanced countries on earth in terms of culture (most books published, translated from other languages and read per capita; most orchestras per capita, etc.); major advances in medicine; technological breakthroughs; and decency as a society, as exemplified by its treatment of its women, gays and even its large Arab minority (particularly remarkable in light of the widespread Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism and desire to annihilate Israel). This is hardly a picture of some bloodthirsty, land-grabbing society. And Jews, whatever their flaws, have never been known to be a violent people. If anything, the stereotypical Jew has been depicted as particularly docile.
As a lifelong liberal critic of Israeli policies, the New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman wrote just two weeks ago: "The Palestinians could have a state on the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem tomorrow, if they and the Arab League clearly recognized Israel, normalized relations and renounced violence. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know Israel today."Give Israel peace, and Israel will give you land.Which is exactly what Israel agreed to do in the last year of the Clinton administration. It offered PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat about 97 percent of the West Bank and three percent of Israel's land in exchange for peace. Instead, Israel got its men, women and children routinely blown up and maimed by Palestinian terrorists after the Palestinians rejected the Israeli offer at Camp David. Even President Clinton, desirous of being the honest broker and yearning to be history's Middle East peacemaker, blamed the ensuing violence entirely on the Palestinians.Israel's Camp David offer of a Palestinian state for Palestinian peace was rejected because most Palestinians and their Arab and Muslim supporters don't want a second state. They want Israel destroyed. They admit it. Only those who wish Israel's demise and the willfully naive do not.
If you don't believe this, ask almost anyone living in the Middle East why there is a Middle East War, preferably in Arabic. If you ask in English, they will assume you are either an academic, a Western news reporter, a diplomat or a "peace activist." And then, they will assume you are gullible and will tell you that it's because of "Israeli occupation" or "the Zionist lobby."
But they know it isn't. And it never was.
bondmanp commented How could you, Dennis?
I feel very betrayed. How could Dennis Prager, who heretofore has spoken the truth, spread such terrible lies about the Arab-Israeli conflict? Does Prager have any knowledge of British Mandatory-era history? If he did, he would have made sure to include these facts that place the conflict into perspective:1. There never was a "Palestinian" people prior to the 1964 formation of the PLO, an Egyptian proxy army created to weaken Israel and contribute to its destruction. Prior to 1947, "Palestinans" referred to residents of British Mandatory Palestine, and that included Palestinian Jews. Most of the Palestinian Arabs in Palestine in 1947 came from adjacent Arab countries. They were attracted by the economic opportunities that the Zionists were creating as they built up the land. (For a description of Palestine before massive immigration of European Jews, read Mark Twain's travelogue from the 19th Century.)
2. ALL of British Mandatory Palestine was to be open to Jewish settlement. This included what is now Jordan, Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The British government handed Trans-Jordan to the Hashemite dynasty in 1922 as a reward for their assistance in WWI. This, despite the fact that the Hashemites were and are a tiny minority in the region. Most Palestinian Arabs have made what is now Jordan their home.3. Even under the UN Partition Plan, Gaza (an area with a Jewish history that long predates Islam) was "unallocated" territory given neither to Arabs or Jews. It was seized by Egypt in the 1948 war of aggression, which is why no nation except Egypt ever accepted Egyptian soveriegnty over Gaza. Similarly, Jordan illegally seized Judea and Samaria ("The West Bank") in the same war. Gaza and the West Bank were never intended to be part of any Jew-free Arab country. Conversely, Israel liberated these territories in a defensive war, giving Israel, according to UN rules, the right to retain these lands. That is why a UN resolution was necessary to force Israel to make territorial concessions in the disputed territories for peace treaties (although the UN resolutions intentionally refrained from calling for "all territories" to be traded for peace; only for "territories" captured in the 1967 war).
What you have done, Mr. Prager, is to play fully into the evil hands of the Islamic aggressors by ignoring history and accepting illegitimate Arab claims over Gaza, Judea and Samaria. By holding out the promise of getting their "rightful" land back when it was never theirs to begin with, you have lent support to those who seek to dismantle Israel piece by piece until it can no longer defend itself from the Arab-Muslim onslaught. Shame on you, Dennis.