Skip to comments.Palestinians: Deserving of a State?-The human rights record of Israel’s “peace partners.”
Posted on 09/16/2013 7:05:52 AM PDT by SJackson
- FrontPage Magazine - http://frontpagemag.com -
Palestinians: Deserving of a State?
Posted By Ari Lieberman On September 16, 2013 @ 12:25 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 1 Comment
On November 20, 2012 six Palestinian civilians, accused of collaborating with Israel, were dragged from their homes in Gaza City by Palestinian gunmen. The butchery that followed represented depravity in the extreme, even by Palestinian standards. The six were summarily executed before an approving crowd that included children and at least one was dragged through the city streets, tethered to a motorcycle. There was no trial, no jury, no judge, no defense attorney and no prosecutor, only thugs armed with AK-47s. Welcome to Palestine, the sweetheart of the misguided, adoring left and the neo-fascist right.
The level of brutality witnessed on that November day is not confined to areas controlled by Hamas nor is it an aberration. The Palestinian Authority, which is dominated by the rival Fatah gang and which controls some 40% of Judea & Samaria (the West Bank) routinely engages in systematic torture, suppression of free speech, arbitrary jailing, incitement to violence and discriminatory practices against its ever-decreasing minority Christian population. Its leader, Mahmoud Abbas, is an unelected, Holocaust-denying, autocrat who is adept at deceiving Western audiences but expresses positions supportive of Hamas when addressing Arabic listeners.
David Keyes, in an insightful Op-Ed piece for the New York Times, correctly noted that how a nation abides by the treaties it signs with its neighbors can be measured by how it treats its own citizens. Judging by the Palestinian Authoritys abysmal human rights record (not to mention that of Hamas) it does not look encouraging.
There are currently twenty-one Arabic countries, all in various states of dysfunction. Iraq, wracked by internecine warfare, is swiftly unraveling with 1,000 of its citizens murdered in sectarian conflict just in the past month. Syria, whose leader recently used Sarin to gas his own people, has long since ceased to be a country, having fractured along ethno-religious lines. And Egypt, always regarded as the premiere Arab state, is just barely functioning and teetering on the brink full-fledged civil war. The rest of the Arab world is in no better shape and there appears to be no end in sight to Arab internal conflict and its brutal consequences.
If past performance is any indicator, the Palestinian state, should it ever come to fruition will almost certainly end up like the rest of the Arab lot and devolve into a stateless, lawless region marked by extremism, violence and terror. Such an entity will pose a direct challenge to regional stability. Indeed, the clan-based ethno and religious schisms that currently exist within Palestinian society are not new and date back to the 1930s and 40s when the Husseini and Nashashibi clans violently battled each other for Palestinian leadership roles.
The bloody 2006 Gaza clashes between Fatah and Hamas that left Hamas in control of Gaza was, like the Husseini-Nashashibi clashes, nothing more than a power grab with a religious twist. Palestinian society has not changed or evolved since the turn of the century. The transition of power is still effectuated through the barrel of an AK-47 and the democratic process is conceptually as alien to them as it was to Pol Pots Khmer Rouge and other despotic, fascist movements.
It is also worthwhile to note past aberrant Palestinian reactions to the suffering and misfortune of others. After the 9-11 attacks that resulted in the deaths of 3,000 civilians, Palestinians were seen gleefully cheering and handing out sweets. Other suicide attacks carried out by Palestinian Arabs in Israel garnered similar perverted reactions. There were reports suggesting that Palestinians cheered after the Boston Marathon outrage as well. During the 1991 Gulf War Palestinians sickeningly cheered as Scud missiles fired by Saddam Hussein landed in heavily populated urban areas of central Israel.
As the circumstances in Egypt, Syria and Iraq have taught us, the world can ill-afford the creation of yet another dysfunctional, undemocratic Arab state. The creation of such an entity will almost certainly invite regional instability. Moreover, a society that instinctively cheers as civilians are maimed and murdered and whose charter still calls for the dismantling of another U.N. member state is undeserving of statehood. It is time for the Palestinian-obsessed E.U. to shift gears, overcome its cognitive dissonance and take up a more worthy cause for a stateless but unique and indigenous people infinitely more deserving of statehood than the so-called Palestinians. The Kurds come to mind.
they had a state
they wrecked it with the inifada
now they ain’t got one and they ain’t gonna get one
Syria, whose leader recently used Sarin to gas his own people
assumes facts not in evidence.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
Nobody is keeping the “Palestinians” from forming a viable state. The elements simply do not exist in that tormented land. What is there can only be described as several mutually untrusting tribes, with little in the way of common interests other than the destruction of Israel.
Even if by some strange arrangement in which the Israelis were transported en masse to another location, with their relocation costs covered and with no loss of life, and the “Palestinians” were to occupy the entire region that is now defined as Israel, the situation for the “Palestinians” would not measurable improve, and may even degenerate further, as they would have access to advanced technology, which would allow them to pursue their tribal rivalries with even more efficient means of subjugating their neighbors.
Not yet ready for prime time. And maybe never.
No. islamists should be killed.
No such people calling themselves Palestinians before 1946. They’re all from trans-Jordan.
The fascists were socialists, to the "right" of only international communists. To deem them as "right wing" is thus disinformation, and a demonization of conservatism, intentional or otherwise. It is a standard tool of the corporate leftist media to be avoided in a thoughtful forum such as Frontpage Magazine.
Send them back to their homeland Jordan. At least 90% of them anyway.
The difference between Commies and Fascists is like the difference between Bloods and Crips...The only difference is the uniforms they wear.
They’re just Arabs, how many Arab states are there?
Don’t know, but before Israel all they did was spend their time in tribal warfare. Israel is what their leaders use to focus them away from killing each other instead.
Yes and no, but to that distinction I will defer to Homage to Catalonia, by George Orwell:
In reality, it was the Communists above all others who prevented revolution in Spain. Later, when the Right Wing forces were in full control, the Communists showed themselves willing to go a great deal further than the Liberals in hunting down revolutionary leaders.In short, there are substantive differences even within the "true believer" communists, that themselves devolve to fascism and "true" communism which, in fact, is an economic system so impracticable as to be virtual, and therefore devolves back to fascism. Hence is your observation that there is no difference. Still, in their minds those differences are so significant that it can get them shooting at each other, an ideological wedge we would be wise to amplify.
Between the Communists and those who claim to stand to the Left of them there is a real difference. The Communists hold that Fascism can be beaten by alliance with sections of the capitalist class (the Popular Front); their opponents hold that this maneuver simply gives Fascism new breeding-grounds. The question has got to be settled; to make the wrong decision may be to land ourselves in for centuries of semi-slavery.
The way to do that is to label most Marxists (and especially American liberals) as "fascists," both to their faces and in print. We must dislodge the common perception that there is anything "right wing" about fascism.
Welcome to Palestine, the sweetheart of the misguided, adoring left and the neo-fascist right.
I must have missed it, the neo-fascist right is connected
Oh, now I see. The left are misguided and adoring,
while the right is neo-fascist. Got it.
All of which was set up by the “geniuses” at the Paris peace talks of 1919. You know, the same socialists that gave the Germans enough of a gripe to bet on Hitler as their savior, the Africans ANOTHER group of legitimate complaints about over-bearing Europeans, and the Americans the income tax and direct election of senators - our first whiff of the Constitution running off the tracks.
That's OK, they are politically acceptable. Now if WE start doing the same to progressives...
Not so, even though they are both socialistic models there are differences.
Under Communism the means of production (land, machinery, buildings, raw materials, and yes even workers) all belong to the state. The economy is controlled by central planners who are members of the political apparatus governing the entire collective. (China under Mao, pre culturalo revelotion)
Under Fascism private ownership is allowed and a limited form of capitalism is permitted. Central planning replaces free markets and the economy is top down directed by the government. (Post Mao China)
PS The US is currently being "nudged" toward fascism and is displaying some of the characteristic failures of "central planning" by our "stalled" economy.
As long as they determine that it benefits the State. But there is no concept of property rights under Fascism, the government might temporarily allow you the benefits of ownership, but it could take it away at the drop of a hat. China most closely fits your definition of "Fascism."
From the beginning of Germany's National Socialist period German industrial Conglomerates Krup, IG Farben, Flick KG, Bayer, Siemens, Daimler-Benz, Ford, and Robert Bosch were private corporations, conglomerates, and trusts which formed the basis of industrial production supporting Hitler's militarization. There was close coordination between these private industries and the Nazi Government. To coin a phrase, they were Germany's "Military Industrial Complex" and they were operated for profit under civilian direction supplying war material. After WWII several corporate directors were charged with "War Crimes" and were tried by the US Military at the "Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals". Charges were made against those using Slave labor, others were charged with providing funds to the Nazi government. (Winners get to write the rules...)
the government might temporarily allow you the benefits of ownership, but it could take it away at the drop of a hat.
That is true of every form of government, Communist, Fascism, Democratic, Constitutional Republic as well. If you don't believe me try not paying your property taxes. The USSC has decided that "Eminent Domain" extends to a municipality and allows it to seize your home to build a strip mall "for the common good" (increased tax base) don't cha know? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "Any government might temporarily allow you the benefits of ownership, but it could take it away at the drop of a hat."
China most closely fits your definition of "Fascism."
I believe I explicitly said that in my original post...
What do you think would have wound up happening to those industrialists once Germany won the war?
Most likely they were going to share the same fate as the Jews, once their services were no longer required. Hitler only tolerated them because he needed them to build his war machine in short order.
What I wrote was factual, your retort is speculation.
Here is my speculation on the matter of what was to become of the industrialists, the lion's share of them were born of German parents and raised and educated in Germany. Hitler's madness to cleanse Germany of Jews extended to Europe and the rest of the world, he had no problem accepting as citizens Germans who were not blonde blue eyed 6'4" specimens of Aryan superiority, he was a huge fan of Margaret Sanger's eugenics movement. Hitler also presented Henry Ford with The Grand Cross of the German Eagle, Germany's highest civilian award, neither Sanger nor Ford were German. The Industrialists were powerful in their own write and I suspect hypotheticaly that as long they remained supportive of Nazi policy he would have used them to build his "Greater Germany". Call it Crony Natzism which is not unlike Crony Capitalism...
Jews were slaughtered as a matter of antisemitic policy which was and continues to be an evil shared to some degree by every country except Israel. The list of "untermenschen" to be "eliminated" includes Jews, Roma (Gypsies), non-Europeans, and Slavic peoples such as Poles, Serbs, Russians, Czechs, and Slovaks. Later mentally ill, chronically ill, & congenitally crippled were added to the list of persons considered genetically defective and a financial burden to society and thus subject to euthanasia. Note that the later class of victims were selected under the precepts of eugenics not racial identity per se, mentally ill Germans were also murdered under this rationalization. A fascinating example of Teutonic single mindedness following orders, perhaps Nazism would have eventually exterminated itself!