The below article is cross-posted from Frontpage
Recently, David Horowitz spoke at Brooklyn College. His report on the experience is illuminating, and I cross-post it here for a couple of reasons. First, he provides thought-provoking arguments for the pro-Israel side. Second, his points are highly applicable to my school, the University of California at Irvine, which has acquired an unenviable world-wide reputation as to anti-Israel agitation by the Muslim Student Union.
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/03/11/its-time-for-the-jews-to-stand-up-for-themselves/2/
So I invite the readers to comment, especially those who don't like Horowitz. Please tell me where he is going wrong. (And please stick to what he says in his article.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It may be seen as a nitpicki there are some things in the article that are not completely true.
I think some Palestinian terrorist groups still claim that part of Jordan will be part of the Palestinian state so they are claiming that part of Jordan is occupied.
Settlements are a problem to those who suppport the two state solution. I think both sides agree that there will have to be some swaps of land. Some parts of Israel proper will be given to the Palestinians in exchange for the land that is outside the 67 borders. Some will then claim that the settlements are on better land. I am not in favor of settlements, especially settlements deep into the West Bank.
Anonymous,
You raise a good point. How much of the state of Jordon is comprised of that disputed Palestinina territory? Why has there never been a world outcry against Jordon to "give back" that land to the Palestinians?
Anonymous,
You raise a good point. How much of the state of Jordon is comprised of that disputed Palestinina territory? Why has there never been a world outcry against Jordon to "give back" that land to the Palestinians?
The Jewish defenders of Massada may not have booby-trapped their children to blow up Roman cohorts, but that is probably because such explosives didn't exist, and an effective attack required wielding swords and daggers which children could not be booby-trapped to do. Said Zealots DID kill their wives, children, comrades in arms, and themselves. During the Roman siege of Jerusalem, they also killed any fellow-Jews who hinted at maybe stopping this madness against an overwhelmingly powerful empire. Rabbi Jonathan ben-Zakkai had to have himself smuggled out of Jerusalem in a coffin, in defiance of the Zealot leaders, so that he could live to create the core of subsequent rabbinical Judaism in Jaffa.
Crowing about which national state has claim to land is a red herring, and Horowitz is too experience an intelligent (albeit obsessed) not to know it. Those people who have self-identified as "Palestinian" were living in considerable portions of the land where the State of Israel now exists, as well as the west bank of the Jordan valley, before and during the arrival of European Jews (and AFTER 1948, significant numbers of Arab Jews). At present, getting some sustainable peace settled between these people and Israel appears to require that they have some political framework to live by with independence and self-determination. One does not have to castigate Israel as a fascist occupier to insist that these people's right to live in peace and prosperity be vinidcated.
It is perfectly true that the king of Jordan had no right to that land. He took it by military force. Israel missed a cue when it failed to announce that it has liberated the territory from Jordanian occupation in 1967, and proceed to implement something like the 1948 UN partition (albeit with different borders due to intervening history).
The comparison of Muslim Arabs in Israel to Jewish settlements in the west bank is worthy of Joseph Goebbels. The Arabic Muslims in Israel were living there BEFORE Israel was formed, managed to avoid being chased out by the invading Arab armies, were invited by the new government of the newly-formed Israel to remain, and did so. Jewish settlers in the west bank are entering land inaccessible to them 1948-1967, which was not part of the land allocation to Israel in the UN partition of 1948, and which is, by and large, already inhabited and farmed, or the new settlements break up roads and communications between existing communities as a matter of "security." These settlement are, in short, no better than breaking up "Indian Territory" to allow a rush of settlers to create "Oklahoma."
"Israel Apartheid Week" is as susceptible to lampooning and rational dissection as David Horowitz's ludicrous intellectual tantrum - but that doesn't mean that Israel's current government policies are worthy of support. They are not.
Post a Comment