The Arab Narrative vs. President Trump

You may also like...

7 Responses

  1. Bob Miller says:

    Note the intense effort by Obama holdovers in the State Department with their media accomplices to delude us that the Trump “settlement” policy is the same as Obama’s.   We’ll all see how this plays out on the ground; no need to get caught up in their clever word games.

  2. Weaver says:

    I agree with most of what you said, and the main impediment to peace is undoubtedly Arab anti-Semitism, and the U.N. is blatantly anti Israel.

    However, most of your history and claims against the Arabs (some of which is questionable) is not immediately relevant to the matter at hand.

    The simple facts are:

    1. In 1967, Israel (justly) came to be in charge of land with about 700,000 Palestinians/Jordanians/Arabs living there. Quibbling with the technical meaning of “occupied” doesn’t help us here. What do you do with them? Just kick them out? They were living there – in far greater number than Jews – for hundreds of years.  The solution is not to act just as immoral as the Arabs do.

    (Incidentally, the official legal status of the WB is to be determined, so any expansion there – certainly the outposts – is illegal, just as Palestinian expansion would be.)

    I personally think the most feasible option is for Israel to withdraw to defensible borders and give the rest back to Jordan; it will be then be their problem. Many Israeli military commanders actually consider Israel’s 1967 annexation of the WB a mistake for this reason.

    2. We also have an unfortunate tendency to mindlessly support the settler movement, no matter what they do. Even though (a) the vast majority of gedolim were/are against it (b) their “hashkafa” is a bizarre messianic Zionism (many of them actually seem to be at-risk American teenagers) (c) most of Israel doesn’t support them (d) every U.S. administration since 1967 has been opposed to the settlement movement

    (Interestingly, when we refer to Zionists vis-a-vis their battles with the Torah world, they’re always “evil”, “secular”, and “anti-Torah”, but in the Arab/Israeli conflict, they suddenly turn into big tzaddikim who can do no wrong. A little subtlety of thought would go a long way here.)

    3. Speaking of Trump, he just came out yesterday and said that Israeli settlements are an impediment to peace.

    Again, Arab anti-Semitism notwithstanding, the question for us is: what can we practically do to lessen the conflict?

    • Nachum says:

      Your “facts” are nothing of the sort. Israel did not “annex the West Bank in 1967”; it never has (apart from areas around Jerusalem). So “many military commanders” can have no opinion on it. Probably 100% say it was perfectly correct for Israel to take it back then. Jordan does not want the West Bank and would almost certainly not take it if offered. Expansion in *occupied* territory is illegal; the West Bank is not “occupied” (“to be determined” is the American phrase, but it’s fair enough) and so settlements are not illegal.

      “Vast majority of gedolim” is another tricky phrase. Under your definition, I’d suppose the same “vast majority” would be against Zionism, period. You’d be hard-pressed to find a single “at-risk” American teenager among these folk. Trump specifically said that the settlements are *not* an impediment to peace. I could go on.

      Oh, and Arab anti-Semitism is *not* “notwithstanding.” It’s kind of the root of the whole problem.

    • Yaakov Menken says:

      Unusual as it may be, on this count I’m in total agreement with Nachum. Anti-Semitism is the entire issue. The 1949 armistice line was never a legal boundary, and to deny Jews the right to live in the “territories” is to endorse ethnic cleansing and genocide, as long as the victims are Jews.

      Whatever the gedolim may say about particular circumstances, there are entire charedi “settlements:” Betar Illit, Modi’in Illit, Tel Zion (near Kochav Yaakov, which is mixed), Immanuel, etc.

      In the past 20 years there has been minimal “settlement activity” outside existing settlements. When they were first built after 1967, no one, certainly neither the US nor UK architects of Resolution 242, thought them illegal or inappropriate in the least.

      Israeli leftists elevated Arafat, an unrepentant and genocidal barbarian, into a “hero of peace” worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. This same moronic attitude dominates the idea that Israel is to blame for people who claim that “resistance is not terrorism” refusing to make peace… with any part of Jewish settlement in artzeinu hakedosha.

      • Nachum says:

        Thank you.

        Let’s be a bit clear here: Modi’in Illit and Betar Illit are full-blown cities. (There are only two other Jewish cities in Yehuda V’Shomron, Maaleh Adummim and Ariel, both of which *have* charedim, of course.) I sometimes wonder- going through them or, even more, Ramot and Gilo, which are the two largest neighborhoods in Jerusalem, if anyone who speaks blithely about “evacuating settlements” has ever actually been to these places and considered the sheer impossibility of moving, literally, hundreds of thousands of people. And while all of these are “close to the line,” so to speak, so long as a single Jew remains *over* the line- as all of these are- Abbas, and certainly whoever follows him, and leftists worldwide, will continue to use it as an excuse of intransigence and even violence. (And, of course, if chas v’shalom they ever *are* moved, you know he’ll find another. Highway 1 runs for a few hundred meters over the line. Want to move that too?) So why bother?

      • lacosta says:

        it does remain true that the O community [and the haredi community as well ] have no answer to weaver’s million dollar question—What do you do with them?       while the gemara is happy to leave a question as a Teiku,  there still needs to be a psak by poskim in those cases.   here too,  while  the community would like a Teiku solution , shev v’al taaseh doesnt seem to have time on its hands. and since the haredi gedolim seem to have allowed their housing crisis to be solved over the Green Line , they have effectively created 100,000 haredi ‘war criminals’  in the eyes of much of the world…

      • Lawrence M. Reisman says:

        Reb Yaakov:

        Be careful where you go with saying “The 1949 armistice line was never a legal boundary.”  That is exactly the argument used to keep foreign embassies in Tel Aviv.  We’re fond of pointing out that only two nations, Great Britain and Pakistan, recognized the legality of Jordan’s occupation of the “West Bank,”  but the same lack of legality applies to the Israeli occupation of WEST Jerusalem.

Pin It on Pinterest