Israel, Oh Israel!

Israel has been in the news off and on since its inception in 1947. The latest brouhaha comes from the UN, where a particularly onerous resolution was passed, without the United States vetoing it.

?So what all is happening. Perhaps a brief review of Israel’s history might be appropriate.

Israel was created by a UN mandate in 1947. One may attribute some of this to the Zionist movement, some to national guilt, some to growing pressure within the Jewish community for their old country back. Take your pick which was the most important aspect.

As soon as Israel was announced, she was immediately involved in a war for her very existence. All her Arab neighbors colluded to attack her and push her into the sea. That failed.

Subsequently there have been 3 other Arab-Israeli Wars – ’56, ’67, ’73. The first was caused by Nasser closing the Suez Canal and France and Israel secretly setting up Egypt for a fall. While Israel went back to her original borders, she learned she could fight without the big support states and that Egypt was defeatable. In ’67 one can view the war in different ways. From the Israeli perspective, Nasser was once again loudly declaring Israel would be pushed into the sea, and closing the Straits of Tiran – which Israel took as a causus belli. One might argue the situation might have been avoided through diplomacy, but that neglects looking at Israel’s strategic space. In as much as it was so smallo, they were somewhat forced to react. The Six Day War was history – still a tour de force of mobile armor assault with overwhelming air superiority. The result left Israel in control of the West Bank and the Golon Heights, neight of which they have been willing to return.

’73 saw a war started by Egypt and Syria, beginning on Yom Kipper. It took Israel totally by surprise although it shouldn’t have in retrospect. The Israelis were drinking their own kool-aid. But despite large, strategically important losses (like the whole Golon Heights battle force and serious Israeli Air Force losses to anti-air missiles), the IDF rallied and not only took back their lost territory but gained more. Among other things, It once again took the Sinai, Gaza, the Golon Heights, and were well into Syria. These victories they converted into Land-for-Peace, getting a peace treaty with Egypt in exchange for the return of the Sinai. While this was loudly attacked by the rest of the Arabs, the Egyptians figured out their interests and have largely co-operated with Israel in a relatively lasting peace vis a vis those two countries. Furthermore, the loss of Egypt in the Arab coalition largely left the rest of the Arab nations without the wherewithall to attack Israel as nations; the IDF had proven itself too powerful and well trained.

As we know, the Arabs, and especially the PLO, has taken an alternative route of offense – terror. This style of combat is classically the early phase of rebellion, when the state has overwhelming force and this is the only method of starting a revolution. However, it is never considered the ULTIMATE form; when things move ahead, regular units are formed and combat becomes more traditional.  The fact that such combat continues is not a function of the Arabs not having convinced their populace of the cause but rather the fact they are afraid of the IDF to actually form units that wage war in a more traditional approach. Thus we get an endless attack on civilians, a far easier and softer target than military units.

So we get to this latest affair at the UN. The Israelis claim they have solid proof that Obama managed the whole resolution and then allowed it to pass. It is by far the harshest UN resolution against Israel to ever have cleared the UN. It is, however, non-binding. And Bibi has already stated he is not going to pay any attention to this act.

The Palestinians, OTOH, have vowed to now go to the World Court and demand war crime indictments against Israeli leaders who defy the edict. Interestingly, they don’t seem to have any worry about the same treatment for them for defying numerous UN resolutions. So clearly the deck is stacked.

Perhaps more importantly, what should the Trump administration stand be – on Israel and this. I would submit that this ought to be the final straw in this whole silly premise of a “two state solution”. There is no evidence of Arabs ever being willing to stop trying to drive the Jews into the sea and destroy Israel. Obama has fecklessly demanded Israel pull back to its pre-’67 borders and this is merely another attempt to force them to do that. But that solves nothing. Furthermore, it makes it clear there are no consequences to war. The Israelis can hardly be accused of fighting a war of aggression; that is solely on the backs of the Arabs. It is time that there be consequences of such behavior. It is time to drop the whole stupid, unworkable two-state solution and acknowledge that Israel stretches to the banks of the Jordan. That is the only rational approach to that situation. It might also force the Arabs to make peace with the borders and try to politically establish themselves within the nation of Israel. Continued rewarding of bad behavior isn’t likely to bring about less of it. And us funding the PLO (or what ever alphabet soup they now call themselves – they change names far more often than their s**t-stained robes) needs to stop also. It is money being spent directly to Israel’s enemies – sworn so.

Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Israel, Oh Israel!

  1. EThompson says:

    Augh! This was my unedited response to John Kerry’s speech today particularly as I listened to this gem:

    “Israel can choose to be a Jewish state or a democracy.”

    I sincerely hope that our President-elect can add this to his long to-do list:

    1. Relocate the UN outside our country. It is, as the Donald would know, a waste of some seriously valuable real estate.

    2. As for our membership, pls cancel our subscription. As 22% contributors, this haven for dictators and Marxists costs the U.S. $3 billion dollars a year. Every cent counts these days.

    3. Stop wasting time trying to broker peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. As Arafat made all too obvious, Devereaux is right: “There is no evidence of Arabs ever being willing to stop trying to drive the Jews into the sea and destroy Israel.”

    This is yet another sorry and humiliating day for the American people. I can only hope that Trump is able to undo the serious damage wrought upon us during the past 8 years.

    What a disgrace.

  2. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    There are undoubtedly things the Jews could do to help solve some of their issues. But one must remember that Israel was founded as a haven for Jews. As such, some of the things they have done are not really fair to the Arabs who have been faithful to the State of Israel.

    That said, the “Palestinians” have collectively shown no remorse over their actions. They were among the many Arabs who danced in the streets when the Towers fell on September 11th. They have made no significant attempt to form a peaceful part of the area, ready and willing to work with Israel for the benefit of all.

    Israel has tried everything. They have tried land-for-peace, they have released thousands of the brigands who have wreaked havoc on their nation – in the name of peace or in exchange for a few paltry Jews the Arabs have captured. They have fought the Arabs, they have assaulted enemy forces and seized land in the process. They have tried bulldozing the homes of terrorists. Nothing works.

    We come to the sad but true statement – Kill them all and let God sort them out. Such perhaps ought to be the fate of all Islam.

  3. BrentB67BrentB67 says:

    ‘palestinian’ = ISIS = Islam.

    There is no bargaining, negotiating, treaty, two-state solution, land for peace, etc.

    Great article Dev.

  4. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    Thank you sir.

    Our politicians keep saying we are not at war with islam. But as Mattis said once, you cannot unilaterally declare a war is over; the other side has a vote.

    So we continue to tiptoe around islam and all its horrific ideas. Despite the quite obvious fact that it is not compatible with modern, nor Western thinking (except perhaps in the addled brains of lefties) there is this constant noise about how we can’t attack “a religion”.

    I submit it is an ideology with religious overtones. Then so were Communists, Nazis, etc. Nothing new here. One would think in a Christian society we would be able to defend our values and attack an enemy who attempts to kill us and our values.

    We really have no need other than avoiding all the ad hominum attacks from the Left it would bring for not declaring what is right before our eyes.

    • BrentB67BrentB67 says:

      In this we are in agreement.

      There are certain characteristics that define a religion and they are fleeting at best within Islam.

      Those touted as moderate are actually doing it wrong.

  5. EThompson says:

    “We come to the sad but true statement – Kill them all and let God sort them out. Such perhaps ought to be the fate of all Islam.”

    Hah! I said that 25 years ago (no reference to Israel of course) and everybody thought I was… well, you know. :)

  6. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    The thing that is maddening is that way back we actually spent real intellectual capital to defeat the IDEA of communism. I just can’t grasp why we don’t do the same now. The shallow argument that there are good people that are muslim (aside from the old joke, “Name three.”) just has no traction. We are not attacking those people directly, but their ideology. The Left, were it truly patriotic, should have started this war long ago. But like most Lefties, they are more interested in defeating conservatives than enemies.

  7. EThompson says:

    “I submit it is an ideology with religious overtones.”

    You said it! I believe (as does my personal heroine Ayaan Hirsi Ali) that the Qur’an is a rule book established by a man in an attempt to satisfy his personal whims and desires.

    Truly enjoyed this post.

  8. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    At heart islam is the rules of a caravan robber. Mohammed is down witth child molestation, rape, torture, robbery, and wanton killing. Nothing religious about that; more like the behavior of a basic gangster.

    At least gangsters of America were not child molesters.

  9. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    IF you are a believing Christian, then it is easy to see the work of the Devil in islam. At its (islam’s) inception Christianity was doing way too well, spreading over much of the world.

    The Devil then created his con, since he is master of earth. Like all good cons, it has a drop of truth. He took a heretic version of Christianity to use for basis. He then created his own version of how things should be.

    The Lord of Old and New Testament is the same – a loving God who on occasion gets riled with how badly His children behave. Still, He is always ready to forgive them, to take them in, to help them. He is a loving God.

    Ask a muslim if allah “loves them”. They will look at you like you’ve lost your mind. Of course allah doesn’t love you! You are here to serve him, not he you. And so it goes. One can find comparison after comparison that show islam is diametrically opposed to Christianity.

    And that makes a mockery of the muslim claim allah gave the first book to the Jews, the second book to the Christians – both of whom blew it, so he gave the third book to Mohammed.

  10. EThompson says:

    “Of course allah doesn’t love you! You are here to serve him, not he you.”

    Yes indeed, and may I add that Islam translates into English as “submission.” This a concept that will never be compatible with Western values.

    I’d also refer to Bill O’Reilly’s excellent documentary on George Washington; his soldiers addressed him as “Your Excellency” despite his immense dislike of this title. He eventually convinced the Continental Congress to drop the term altogether.

    This story is precisely what used to define my country.

    (BTW, enjoyed the fact you did not capitalize allah.)

  11. EThompson says:

    “If you are a believing Christian, then it is easy to see the work of the Devil in islam.”

    I would describe myself as a Deist; a belief system that is very compatible with Christianity because it endorses the importance of ethical conduct. We adamantly believe in “right and wrong” for its own sake and its pragmatically beneficial results upon society. With that said, we are simply appalled at the evil tenets of Sharia and Islam in general because the Muslim states are failures on all levels: human rights, economic growth, contributions to the GNP by 50% of the population (women) and national security.

    I only wonder why this is even a discussion in this country.

  12. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    Nor islam. Nor muslim. I don’t believe they deserve that privilege.

  13. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    FWIW Daniel Greenberg on his blog, Sultan Knish, has written at length about the death of the “two state solution”. You can read it here:

  14. ctlaw says:

    The so-called “1967 borders” are technically “the 1949-50 armistice lines”.

    Calling them “1967 borders” is doubly erroneous and begs the question of why the the terms are being used.

    Normally, the date applied to something is the date of its beginning, not end. By using “1967” instead of “1948” or “1949-50”, the left brings to mind a war they can call an Israeli aggression rather than a war that was a genocidal invasion by foreign countries.

    By calling the lines “borders” they create the impression that the side who is over the lines is the aggressor.

    Even calling them “pre-1967 borders”, has the same effects.

  15. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    Good point.

    I consider Israel’s war those of defense, not aggression. I believe Israel should be allowed to hold the West Bank as part of their nation. What is surprising is that Israel is so sensitive to muslim beliefs abnd sensibilities, while the opposite is totally lacking. Were the Jews to act like the muslims, they would have razed the golden dome mosque and put up what they wanted in its place.

  16. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    Oh, and I believe the demise of the “two state solution” has come. Time to end this nonsense, call it Israel, and be done with it. The Arabs deserve no other consideration.

Leave a Reply