I AM A JEW (PART XV - A Return to a Defense of Israel’s Policies & a Rebuttal)

As the title shows this is the 15th part (actually the 16^th, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on the parts.

Part I, Part II, Part III, Special Bulletin, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII, Part IX, Part X, Part XI, Part XII, Part XIII and Part XIV.

In this segment I find it necessary to re-produce the assertions for the apologists for Israeli expansionist and oppressive policies and to insert the rebuttal after each assertion. I will show the assertions in brown and my response in black type.

The first is entitled: “Israel’s Borders," followed by a sub-heading: “Are they "legitimate"? Should they be changed?” and then the following introduction:

Many in the Arab world insist that the State of Israel is "illegitimate" and that, in order to be considered for "recognition," it must, at the very least, "adjust" its borders. In order to justify that insistent demand, Arab propaganda has created many myths. By dint of constant repetition, some of these myths have come to be accepted as reality.

It is difficult to respond to this because it is not clear, at least from this paragraph, what borders the author is talking about.

So I will pass on to the next part:

What are some of these myths and what are the facts? 

Myth: The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 changed border arrangements that had existed for centuries. 

Fact: The borders in the Middle East were drawn arbitrarily after World War I by Britain and France. In the spoils, Britain got Iraq and Palestine. In 1922, contrary to the Balfour Declaration and to its Mandate from the League of Nations, Britain gave the area east of the Jordan River (77% of Palestine) to the Hashemite tribes.

I will not respond to this because it is a straw man. I know of no source that asserts or believes, “The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 changed border arrangements that had existed for centuries.”

Myth: Israel has been expansionist since its establishment. 

Fact: In 1974, Israel returned to Syria territories captured in the 1967 and 1973 defensive wars. In exchange for a peace treaty, Israel returned the vast Sinai area in Egypt, with flourishing cities, strategic installations, and economic assets. Thus Israel proved conclusively that peace and security -- not extra land — are its top priorities.

Here I assert that the so-called myth, that “Israel has been expansionist since its establishment” is irrefutable. According to the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Partition Plan) November 29, 1947 “called for the partition of the British–ruled Palestine Mandate into a Jewish state and an Arab state.” And it shows the following map.

Even this partition was objected to by many in the US State Department on the grounds that:

the partition plan, adopted by the United Nations on November 29, 1947. (is) Patently unfair (for), it awarded 56 percent of Palestine to its 650,000 Jewish inhabitants, and 44 percent to its 1,300,000 Muslim and Christian Arab inhabitants.

I, personally think this was the wrong analysis because the land to be given to the new State of Israel was not just for the inhabitants then there residing, but for the expected influx of refugees who were expected to, and did arrive from places where Jews had recently been displaced and places were they continued to face oppression such as Russia.

But to say that the Israel has not been expansionist is to fly in the face of the facts as can be seen from any map. But the claim that Israel has not been expansionist is also repeated by the Jewish Virtual Library, which also describes this as a myth and then sets forth a list of examples showing that Israel has as part of various peace treaties relinquished some territory that it occupied as a result of military conquest.

This is undoubtedly true. Israel has at times withdrawn from previously captured territory, but it is irrelevant to the question. To be expansionist does not mean that a state has to hold onto every inch of territory that it has captured. It simply means that it has expanded, beyond the territory given to it by the UN resolution of 1948, which is the only territory to which it has de jure title.

Reverting now to the Jewish Virtual Library it sets forth a map of Israel as it is now constituted, using it to argue that Israel’s security requires it to further expand. But that is a way of justifying expansion. It does not show either that it has not expanded, or that it does not intent to expand. In fact in arguing for the justification for expansion for security reasons, it admits that ambition.

But beyond that, and If we focus on the issue as stated, is Israel an expansionist state, the answer is obvious from a simply comparison of the map showing the territory that Israel occupies under the so-called 1967 armistice line, or green line, (See the map below) and the land that was granted to Israel by the UN. (See the map below that) Though the Jewish Virtual Library (Ibid) argues that the new 1967 armistice line are not defensible, it is impossible to argue that they do not encompass a territory larger than that granted to Israel by the 1948 UN resolution.

But we need not rely on a comparison of maps. If we look at another web site that argues that the borders that the UN created were indefensible, we find that the original state created and sanctioned by the UN had an area of “5,500 square miles”.

But after the 1948 war according to a pro-Israel article in the Seattle Times, Israel’s territory encompassed 8,000 square miles, an increase 2,500 square miles or almost a 50% increase. But Israel has not been content with this huge increase in its territory. It covets the rest of the West Bank as can be seen from the settlement activity shown on the map below,

An even better map showing the extent of the settlements can be found here, where an article in the Wall Street Journal argues that the settlements require the annexation of most, if not all of the West Bank.

If these are not the acts of an expansionist state it is difficult to imagine what would be. It is difficult to imagine that Israel’s territorial ambitions extend beyond that.

All this is attempted to be justified on the ground that Israel’s 1948 borders were not defensible. That indeed the Armistice or Green line is not defensible. And so Israel has to keep expanding until it reaches a defensible line. It is becoming apparent that this line is the Jordan River, or the complete annexation of the West Bank.

The fear is that if this were to happen as expressed by the US President, the Secretary of State and indeed former Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, who according to CNN said as long ago as 2010:

As long as in this territory west of the Jordan River there is only one political entity called Israel, it is going to be either non-Jewish or non-democratic. If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state.

This fear was also expressed by US Secretary of State John Kerry in February of 2014 as reported by Fox News and I quote:

The U.S. secretary of state himself has started warning Israel that it stands to become a binational state unless it ends the occupation of the lands it captured in the 1967 war. Kerry, who is expected to present a framework for a deal soon, said last month that failure "will make it impossible to preserve (Israel's) future as a democratic Jewish state."

But many discount this danger, as for example, an article in the Boston Globe of June 26, 2013 explains:

In the 1960s, when the fertility rate for Israeli Arabs (9.2 births per woman) soared far above that of Israeli Jews (3.4 births per woman), that demographic challenge certainly seemed plausible. Yasser Arafat liked to say that the ultimate weapon in his arsenal against the Jewish state was “the womb of the Arab woman.” The Palestinian Authority has always understood the propaganda value of population data. As the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics began its first census in the West Bank and Gaza in 1997, the bureau’s director, Hassan Abu Libdeh, assured The New York Times that the results would amount to nothing less than “a civil intifada.” In 2005, the bureau predicted that Jews would be a minority in “historic Palestine” (i.e., west of the Jordan River) by 2010. Now it says the tipping point will come by 2020.

 Don’t count on it.

 Arafat’s boast notwithstanding, Palestinian women, like women throughout the Muslim world, are bearing far fewer children than they used to. Within Israel proper, the birth rate among Muslims has trended steadily downward and stands now at 3.5 children per woman. It is even lower for Palestinians in the West Bank — just 2.91, according to the CIA Factbook. In a 2012 survey by the Population Reference Bureau of family planning attitudes in the Arab world, 72 percent of married Palestinian women (ages 15 through 49) said they preferred to avoid a pregnancy. That was typical of the modern Middle East: The same survey showed most Jordanians, Egyptians, and Syrians felt the same way.

 But while Palestinian birth rates have dramatically declined, Jewish birth rates in Israel have been heading up. Israel now has the highest fertility level of any modern industrialized nation. The fertility gap between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs, a yawning 5.8 in the 1960s, is just 0.5 today. Defying longstanding conventional wisdom, writes former Israeli diplomat Yoram Ettinger, it is Israel’s Jewish population that is undergoing a remarkable surge, rising from about 80,000 births per year in 1995 to 130,000 in 2012. (The annual number of Israeli Arab births has held steady at between 35,000 and 40,000). “Anyone suggesting that Jews are doomed to become a minority west of the Jordan River is either dramatically mistaken or outrageously misleading,” Ettinger argues.

But whoever is right on the demographics, the very discussion of the question clearly shows Israel’s designs on all of the West Bank, or to put it another way on all of Palestine.

If this is not the ambition of an expansionist state, it is difficult to imagine what one is, or can be.

I will continue this discussion in my next post.

I welcome comments, but will not publish any, unless they have a unique relevance to the segment under discussion, until this series is complete.

The President’s Second Inaugural Address

I find the reaction to the President’s Second Inaugural Address both surprising and puzzling.

Republican Speaker John Boehner in a speech to the Ripon Society following the President’s speech said:

Given what we heard yesterday about the president’s vision for his second term, it’s pretty clear to me that he knows he can’t do any of that as long as the House is controlled by Republicans… So we’re expecting over the next 22 months to be the focus of this administration as they attempt to annihilate the Republican Party. And let me just tell you, I do believe that is their goal — to just shove us into the dustbin of history. (Emphasis added)

Wow! Was it really that radical?

Paul Ryan, the Republican Chairman of the House Budget Committee and the architect of the Republican budgets declared on Meet the Press that:

[what] you saw his speech, say, at the inauguration, it leads us to conclude that he’s not looking to moderate, that he’s not looking to move to the middle…He’s looking to go farther to the left, and he wants to fight us every step of the way politically…

And Mitch McConnell the leader of Senate Republicans declared: 

One thing is clear from the president’s speech: The era of liberalism is back. His unabashedly far-left-of-center inaugural speech certainly brings back memories of the Democratic Party in ages past. If the President pursued that kind of agenda, obviously it’s not designed to bring us together, and certainly not designed to deal with the transcendent issue of our era, which is deficits and debt.

So let us look at the President’s speech and parse it: 

The text can be found here.

“Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone.”

Radical? Can even these avatars of the Right challenge this?

Well, the President goes on to say:

“For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.”

This may not be all that much to their liking but can they, or for that matter anyone, question it?

“For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class.”

Well, that may not suit them all that well, but do they really want to challenge this. It sure wouldn’t be a popular thing to do.

“We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. We must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, reach higher. But while the means will change, our purpose endures…”

Republicans have long urged revamping our tax code. Surely they are in favor of remaking our government. What is radical here?

“We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit.”

This sounds like something right out of their playbook. What is their problem?

“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”

Ah! Radical! Republicans have long insisted (well, maybe not so long) that there is no “Climate Change” and if there is, it is not man made. So is this the radical stuff that upsets them so?

When John McCain was the Republican standard-bearer against the President in 2008 he said he would combat global warming with a cap-and-trade system to cut carbon emissions and increase use of nuclear power and alternative energy. Here is how the Seattle Times reported on McCain’s position.

“In a major environmental speech, Sen. John McCain on Monday said he would combat global warming with a cap-and-trade system to cut carbon emissions and increase use of nuclear power and alternative energy.”

Obama went on to say:

“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law…”

Well, this may be radical, but we know that more and more of the American people share this believe, and particularly our young people do. Are Republicans really ready to write off the views of future generations?

“No citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote.”

Republicans have been very busy suppressing the vote, but surely they will not come right out and declare themselves against this principle.

“Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.”

At a time when Republicans are rushing to show there willingness to reform our immigration laws and open a way to legalization of the 11 million in our midst, do they really want to declare this a radical idea?

“Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.”

Is this a radical idea? Are Republicans, whether they are against an assault weapons ban, or against better background checks, or any other measures to stem the daily slaughter of our citizens in our cities and towns, willing to stand against this proposition? Is it truly radical?

And what about a ban on assault weapons?

Here is what Ronald Reagan, their claimed icon, wrote in a joint letter with former Presidents Ford and Carter in 1994 to the House of Representatives urging them to vote in favor of the ban.

We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assault weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime. 

Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47. 

The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon. 

While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.

And in 1991 Ronald Reagan wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times endorsing the Brady Bill.

So what is so radical about the President’s vision as set forth in his inaugural? John Harwood writing in the New York Times states what I think should be obvious.

For all the talk that President Obama has shifted leftward, much of his early second-term energy seeks simply to preserve the status quo.

It is not the President who is the radical. It is the new Republican Party that is the radical party, seeking to push this country back to the days of President McKinley, or possibly even, in some ways, to an Antebellum period, as we once again hear the cries of secession from their Texas Republican governor, and theories of states rights that we long thought had been put to rest by the Civil War and the 14^th amendment.

The Republican Party is at a crossroad. Do they have their eyes on the future, or as David Frum, the former speechwriter for George W. Bush, has worried:

We Republicans may console ourselves that we did win two big victories in the recent past, 1994 and 2010. But those were off-year elections, when 60 percent of America stays home, and those who do turn out are the wealthier, the older, and the whiter. Exit polls indicate that 34 percent of the 2010 electorate was over age 60; in 2012, only 15 percent of voters were older than 65. The Republican success in those elections only underscores the bigger problem: the GOP is rapidly becoming the party of yesterday’s America.

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified.