"Israstine" is not an option

Submitted by Archimedes2 (Canada), Feb 10, 2009 at 18:06

Sorry sTs, the "Israstine" line has been tried many times. Won't happen for several reasons.

First: you don't get an invitation into someone's government by blowing up their children in playgrounds and nurseries with missiles and sending your teenagers to blow up themselves and innocent citizens in buses and shopping malls. Just as you don't marry someone making death threats against you, you don't make allies of those teaching their children that, upon God's command you must be consigned to a grisly death by every and all means possible.

Second: From the perspective of "Palestinians" (here I don't mean the whole people, who are not all of one mind; I mean those with power and influence, whose choices govern the fate of their people) this whole affair is not about "nations"; it is about land and religious "rights" -- it is about waqf, and it is about hatred of the Jews, whom they believe are supposed to be suppressed people, not rulers. It is therefore about religious imperialism.

This is why Hamas and Hezbollah have sworn to completely eradicate the nation of Israel and the Jews from Palestine (and acted for many years entirely consistently with this oath). Hezbollah's leader Nasrallah has said that he regards it as a good thing for the Jews to be all together in Israel so there is no need to hunt them down all over the earth.

Tell me, how do you propose Hezbollah would respond to their bloodkin in Palestine establishing a state in which the Jews share power? If you think this will lead to peace you are living in a pipe dream. He has already made clear that if Palestinians in Israel are killed while eradicating the Jews then that is fine with him. So much he cares for "your" people. As for Hamas ... well you have seen it for yourself repeatedly, and even more in the recent conflict, how much they care for the safety of their own people. Do you propose them as peaceful partners? What planet are you from?

Third: although Israel is the only liberal secular democracy in the region it was also created specifically for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people. Not exclusive of the non-Jewish people in the land, who are given full citizenship. You cannot simply waltz in and change this state, possibly the only one in history whose creation and purpose was the result of the consensus of nations. If there really was any desire to create a place where so-called "Palestinians" belonged, then the other regions where these perpetual grievance communities they call "refugee camps" ought to do as Israel did many decades ago: dissolve the camps, give the arab "palestinians" in them full citizenship, incorporate them into your societies, and get on with living peacefully together. Israel is not to be lectured on making citizens of its "Palestinians" until all the surrounding Arab countries are willing to do the same.

Fourth, and probably most importantly: Your own proposal makes it clear why this can never, and must never happen. You cannot bring yourself to propose a merged state with a straight face -- almost without thinking you go on to crow about how you believe it will lead to the Palestinians becoming a majority and taking over control of the government. Your thoughts are so transparent, you don't even bother trying to hide them.

This is the very point: Israel is what it is because the Israelis have established, with the approval of the world community, a homeland for their people. When they make noises about preserving its uniquely Jewish nature opponents object that it is racist and xenophobic to believe that they will simply be overrun demographically, or that this is a mere excuse not to "share the land". But your own words reveal, sTs, that this is not xenophobia but a recognition that this is, indeed, the very purpose that proponents of so-called "Israstine" have in mind: demographic jihad, for the cleansing of Jews from the land. You have said as much yourself.

Many opponents of Israel argue that Israel has unfairly taken away the homeland of the Palestinians. I disagree, but this is something that we can discuss -- it is worth hearing all points of view. But if you are prepared to argue, on that basis, that their homeland can be taken away from them by a deliberate demographic campaign or any other means, I'm afraid all you are doing is arguing that two wrongs make a right. Even if the first wrong is granted (which I do not), this is a non-sequitor. You must really think us pretty stupid if you think this argument has any persuasive power.

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".