Rights to the Land

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Aug 8, 2007 at 14:03

There is an appearance here that the idea of boundary issues in the Middle East are all part of some continuing tribal gamesmanship for territorial ownership and associated rights, which has a tendency to minimize the underlying circumstances of the struggles along each of the mentioned borders. They are tough issues.

But further, to attempt once again to include the issues Israel has with its borders adjacent to its hostile surroundings is to appear to adopt of an attitude that if Israel did in fact disappear into a ‘Palestinian State' (evidently the preferred state), or is dispersed amongst those clamouring for some re-instatement of alleged previous territorial rights, Are we to assume this will be just the same as if Bahrain or Lebanon vanishes? Hardly, for we are not just discussing remapping the Middle East for the next progression of history, we are discussing an event that if allowed to progress even infinitesimally one step further against Israel, the whole world will be called on to pay the consequences.

This is the ancient debate; who are the sons of the promise; and who are the sons of disobedience; and who gets the land? Isaac, Jacob and his sons are the rightfully designated heirs to the heart of Israel: not Ishmael, not Esau whose descendants populate much of the rest of the Middle East.

Look at Hebron. It is by all modern accounts part of the ‘West Bank', to become part of a ‘Palestinian State,' if they can ever get their act together. But in ancient times, this is the land promised to Abraham and his rightful heirs, and he even purchased a personal portion to bury family there. This is being fought over, right now, as if Israel does not have the right to their ancient history.

Yet, this could be considered a minor circumstance when one considers that to many in the ‘Palestinian' camp, all ‘occupied lands' are to be returned, meaning in Arab parlance all of the territory fought over in 1948, not just the 1967 boundaries. Remembering that infamous map that Kofi Annan stood in front of showing the entire outline of the State of Israel as being labeled ‘Palestine,' it is not hard to see how Israel should have the gravest concern for its continued existence. One wonders, though, how the current Israeli leadership does not seem to have that concern.

All of the other mentioned countries that are in danger of being overrun, are they not given the best assurances of protection by the United Nations? That remains to be seen. But it is quite evident, those borders will be handled differently than the demand made to Israel to give up its border to ancient holdings, which comes from no less than the Quartet and backed by the majority of the Arab presence in the Middle East, indeed much of the world. No such demand is made of the other border territories, for world peace is not contingent upon securing those borders.

Was there nothing learned from Gaza about borders? Kuwait seems to be done with for the moment. Bahrain may have its issues. Lebanon may yet disappear into Syria, but tinker with Israel one more time, let alone follow through with rescinding the 1967 border, and we will be discussing this under a nuclear umbrella, which, it is suspected, nobody is ready for. After all, no one will spark a nuke for Bahrain, or even Iraq. Just try, though, just try and mess with Jerusalem, but listen for the horsemen if you do.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".