Why Don’t I Care About the Palestinians?

National Review ^ | May 9, 2002 | John Derbyshire

[Darkshadow]

May 9, 2002 8:45 a.m.
Why Don’t I Care About the Palestinians?
The options, as I see them.

Why don't I care about the Palestinians? It is, of course, wrong of me not to care. It can't be much fun being a Palestinian. You, or your parents, or your grandparents, ran for their lives in the 1948 war. You — and/or they, plus a couple of generations of uncles, aunts, siblings, and cousins — have been huddled in some squalid refugee camp ever since, living off UNRWA handouts. ("UNRWA," by the way, stands for "U.S. taxpayer." But you knew that!) There is no economy worth participating in. Your leaders won a fragmented, halfway sort of autonomy for you at Oslo; but it didn't work, you're not sure why. Nothing really got any better, and now the Israelis have smashed it all up anyway. The other Arabs all hate you (a little-known factor of Middle East political life, but one attested by my colleague David Pryce-Jones, who knows the Arabs better than anyone). Things look bad, and you are sunk in despair. Shouldn't I feel sorry for you?

Sure, I personally favor Israel in this conflict. That's my right as a freethinking person. I'm a Christian, though, aren't I? Shouldn't I have some Christian compassion to spare for the poor suffering Palestinians? Ask not for whom the bell tolls, etc., etc.

Well, I suppose I should, but to be honest about it, I don't. Why not? Why don't I care about the Palestinians? The answer is NOT any of the following.

I like taking showers with Jews.
Palestinians have dark skin and I'm a racist.
My name was originally Derbstein.
My British blood is boiling with shame over the lost empire.
I am a lackey of, or am trying to ingratiate myself with, the Jews who run the U.S. media.
I am a cruel, hard-hearted bigot.

The answer isn't exactly compassion fatigue, either. That's pretty close, though. I am aware of a certain level of compassion fatigue in regard to the world at large, and it spills over into the Palestinian issue.

The other day I had the depressing experience of reading, one right after the other, Stephen Kotkin's wonderfully titled "Trashcanistan" in the April 15th New Republic, then Helen Epstein's "Mozambique: In Search of the Hidden Cause of AIDS" in the May 9th New York Review of Books. The first of these was a long portmanteau review of six books about the fates of various components of the old U.S.S.R. in the years since the thing fell apart. The second tries to discover why a sleepy rural area of Mozambique, populated by courteous folk practicing a traditional way of life, has high levels of AIDS.

Kotkin's account of the ex-Soviet colonies — Ukraine, Moldova, the central Asian and Caucasian republics, etc. — is hair-raising. Principal features of the landscape here are utter economic collapse, "gangland violence among state ministers," rising Islamofascism and the flight of large sectors of the population. (One-third of the able-bodied workforce of Moldova has fled. I have just been reading another report about that wretched country. Sample quote: "Experts estimate that since the fall of the Soviet Union between 200,000 and 400,000 women have been sold into prostitution — perhaps up to 10 percent of the female population.") Kotkin writes beautifully about this appalling situation, which stretches across the entire southern and western marches of the old U.S.S.R., illuminating his account with memorable one-liners like: "Ukraine has gotten its state and is eating it, too."

Helen Epstein's piece on Mozambique tells of a state of affairs just as awful. The fundamental problem, she discovers, is that: "These people are so poor ... that sex has become part of their economy. In some cases, it's practically the only currency they have." The men go away for months on end to work in the South African mines — where, of course, they console themselves with prostitutes. The women left behind survive as best they can, often by becoming the mistresses of the few local men who can actually afford to eat. Why are they all so poor? Because Mozambique has been wrecked by corruption, tribal war and stupid economics.

What a world! You can only read a certain amount of this stuff before you start to avert your eyes. What on earth can anyone hope to do about all this? All the simple explanations for the horrors that stain a large part of our planet have been used up. We now know that it's not the fault of colonialism, or neo-colonialism, or capitalism, or socialism. It's just the way these places are. They can't handle modernity, for some cultural reason we don't understand and can't do anything about.

That's the context in which I see the Palestinians. The Palestinians are Arabs; and the Arabs, whatever their medieval achievements (as best I can understand, they were mainly achievements of transmission — "Arabic" numerals, for example, came from India) are politically hopeless. Who can dispute this? Look at the last 50-odd years, since the colonial powers left. What have the Arabs accomplished? What have they built? Where in the Arab world is there a trace or a spark of democracy? Of constitutionalism? Of laws independent of the ruler's whim? Of free inquiry? Of open public debate? Where in your house is there any article stamped "Made in Syria?" Arabs can be individually very charming and capable, and perform very well in free societies like the U.S.A. There are at least two recent Nobel prizes with Arab names attached. Collectively, though, as nations, the Arabs are no-hopers.

All of this applies to the Palestinians. I spent some of my formative years in Hong Kong, a barren piece of rock with zero natural resources, under foreign occupation, chock-full of refugees from the Mao tyranny. The people there weren't lounging in UNRWA camps or making suicide runs at the governor's mansion. They were trading, building, speculating, manufacturing, working — with the result that Hong Kong is now a glittering modern city filled with well-dressed, well-educated, well-fed people, proud of what they have accomplished together, and with a higher standard of living than Britain herself. If, following the Oslo accords — or for that matter, in the 20 years of Jordanian occupation — the Palestinians had taken that route, had set aside their fantasies of revenge and massacre, and concentrated on building up something worth having, I might have respect for them. As it is, I don't.

The only halfway sympathetic thing I can find to say about the Palestinians is that UNRWA has surely been part of the problem. If you go to the UNRWA website, you will see how proud they are of having fed, clothed, sheltered, educated and cared for the Palestinian refugees of 1948... and their children... and their grandchildren. The number of people UNRWA cares for has gone from 600,000 in 1948 to nearly four million today. Now, I understand that the prime impulse of bureaucracies, especially welfare bureaucracies, is the consolidation and expansion of their turf, and a steady increase in the number of their "clients"; but this is ridiculous. The good people of Hong Kong should go down on their knees every night and thank God that there was no UNRWA in the colony in 1949. So, come to think of it, should the German and East European refugees who flooded into Western Europe after WWII. (I have seen the number 14 million somewhere — the Sudeten Germans alone numbered three million. Where are the festering camps? Where are the suicide bombers?)

Even if their lives had not been poisoned by the ministrations of a huge welfare bureaucracy, though, I doubt the Palestinians would have got their act together. None of the other Arabs have. Everywhere you look around the Arab world you see squalor, despotism, cruelty, and hopelessness. The best they have been able to manage, politically speaking, has been the Latin-American style one-party kleptocracies of Egypt and Jordan. Those are the peaks of Arab political achievement under independence, under government by their own people. The norm is just gangsterism, with thugs like Assad, Qaddafi, or Saddam in charge. It doesn't seem to be anything to do with religion: the secular states (Iraq, Syria) are just as horrible as the religious ones like Saudi Arabia. These people are hopeless. We are all supposed to support the notion of a Palestinian state. Why? We know perfectly well what it would be like. Why should we wish for another gangster-satrapy to be added to the Arab roll of shame, busy manufacturing terrorists to come here and slaughter Americans in their offices? I don't want to see a Palestinian state. I think I'd be crazy to want that.

What, actually, are the possible futures for the Palestinians? I think the following list is exhaustive.

1. An independent state, under Arafat or someone just as thuggish.
2. Military occupation by Israel.
3. Re-incorporation into a Jordanian-Palestinian nation.
4. Some sort of U.N. trusteeship.
5. Expulsion from the West Bank and Gaza, those territories then incorporated into Israel.

Number 1 is what we are all supposed to want. As I have already indicated, I don't want it, and I can't see why anyone else would, either. Except Palestinians, I suppose: If they yearn to be ruled by amoral hoodlums (as, according to polls, they apparently do), I suppose they have some theoretical right to see their wishes fulfilled — but why should the rest of us allow it to happen, given the dangers to us? Number 2 might work for a time, but the Israelis would eventually get fed up with it, and then we'd move on to one of the other options. Number 3 would get us back to the pseudo-stability of pre-1967, but is deeply unpopular with Jordanians — and look what happened in 1967! Number 4 undoubtedly has the UNRWA bureaucrats drooling, but as with number 1, it's hard to see what's in it for the rest of us. Aren't we handing over enough of our money in welfare payments to our own people?

Which leaves us with number 5: expulsion. I am starting to think that this might be the best option. I'm not the only one, either. Here is Dick Armey, Republican leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, talking to Chris Matthews on Hardball:

MATTHEWS: Well, just to repeat, you believe that the Palestinians who are now living on the West Bank should get out of there?

Rep. ARMEY: Yes.

When I say "the best option," I don't mean "best for the Palestinians". I don't think they have any good options. Being Arabs, they are incapable of constructing a rational polity, so their future is probably hopeless whatever happens. Their options are the ones I listed above: to be ruled by gangsters, or Israelis, or Jordanians, or welfare bureaucrats. Or to go live somewhere else, under the gentle rule of their brother Arabs. Would expulsion be hard on the Palestinians? I suppose it would. Would it be any harder than options 1 thru 4? I doubt it. Do I really give a flying falafel one way or the other? No, not really.

— Mr. Derbyshire is also an NR contributing editor

[Right-WingDaddy]

Why is the rest of the world supposed to welcome them, when their own "brother muslims" wont??

[DoughtyOne]

As much as I might like to disagree with this, I can't. The fact is the middle-east is as baren of leadership as the whole of Africa is. Only one or two states have anything resembling peaceful level headed leadership.

What's absolutely amazing to me, is that these states, China and the old despotic nations of the earth are the only ones the UN never demands anything of. Slavery, terrorism, despotism, absolute poverty, no problem. But the west is criticized with unrelenting ferver. Now there's an area that should be whipped into shape. Go figure.

[THROW?]

I think another thing to point out is what would happen if they were all by themselves. They would just kill each other. They are living in a high religion and highly militant society. VERY BAD MIX! They are neanderthals that thrive on war. What else can they do. You can only look at the rocks so long. Imagine that, they don't even have the luxury of watching the grass grow. I do feel sorry for them.

[Utah Girl]

Interesting article ping.

[DoughtyOne]

TBL, I do to, to an extent. Then it gets a little iffy. Look, the fact is the PLO has caused unemployment on the West Bank to go from something like 30% 18 months ago to 70% today. As this has occured families on the West bank have blamed Israel and sacrificed their own children on the alter of Chairman Yasser Arafat. For God's sake folks, wake the hell up.

[truth_seeker]

A clinical definition of Insanity: Doing the same thing, over and over, expecting different results.

Now, every party to the pali situation is insane. The palis keep on with violence. The Israelis deep on with restrained counter measures. The US, UN, EU keep encouraging a negotiated peace settlement.

The underlying FACT is that ALL arabs desire the destruction of Israel. Of course being arabs, they lie about this, and much of the west remains duped by their lies.

Expulsion of arabs, from the lands fairly won in 1967, seems the logical solution. But if Jordan, Italy, Spain et el won't take 13 terrorist prisoners, who would want 4 million of these folks, anyway?

Their arab brethren know they would be a PERMANENT problem, and don't want them. I read a suggestion made by someone else: Turnabout--why don't the Israelis drive all of the palis into the sea?

[SkyPilot]

Already posted.

[Enemy Of The State]

um, maybe because there is no such thing as a "Palestinian"?

[dennisw]

Rush Limbaugh read this on his show yesterday. Was the first thing he did.

[Darkshadow]

Did a search, didn't find anything

[SkyPilot]

Why I Don't Care About Palestinians

[Corvair]

Timely BTTT!

[atomicpossum]

Wow. Truth hurts, don't it?

[randog]

I think that civilized people are starting to reach their breaking point. The constant drone of terrorism is starting to get to us. Sure, the odds of becoming a victim to terrorism is very remote, but terrorism affects more than just our lives--it affects our way of life, from the economy to our vacation plans. I think folks are primed and ready for the fact that some pretty rude things need to be done to solve this problem.

[goldstategop]

The Arab World's two contributions to civilization in the last century are oil and terrorism. Now terrorism seems to be the region's Number One growth as well as export industry. Its hopeless.

[rightwingcrazy]

Derbershire forgets Option 6: the Hamas option. This seems to be the unspoken choice of Europe and the (spoken choice of the) Arab world.

[CapandBall]

this is a gem

[nonliberal]

Why don't I give a f@#$ about the "Palestinians?"

That is an easy one. In Israel, the "Palestinians" have access to health care, representation in the Knesset, and jobs. Were said "Palestinians" to go north to Lebanon, they would find that they have NONE of those. The "Palestinians" in Israel have it pretty good.

Also 80-85% of the Palestinan Mandate land is in Jordan. Israel occupies 3% of that land. Until 1967 Jordan controlled the Gaza Strip and Egypt controlled the West Bank. The "Palestinians" had no problems with that. It is only when the infidels control a miniscule amount of land that they begin the bombings.

I spell Palestine J-O-R-D-A-N.

[Righty1]

Neandertals were no where near as violent as arabs. In addition, they mostly ponder sand and dust with rocks a luxury.